|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
|News||Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump||Recommended Links||Russiagate: Special Prosecutor Mueller and his fishing expedition||Post-Russiagate remorse -- the second Iraq WDM fiasco||John "911 Coverup" Mueller||Coordinated set of leaks as a color revolution tool||Attempts to entrap Trump||Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections|
|Big Obstruction of Justice debate||Infiltration of Trump campaign||Joseph Misfud and MI6 connection to Russiagate||Carter Page||Infiltration of Trump campaign||Stephan Halper and attempts to entrap members of Trump team||Andrew McCabe and his close circle of "fighters with organized crime"||Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit||Susan Rice unmasking campaign as an attempt to derail Trump by Obama administration|
|Strzokgate||Steele dossier||Brennan elections machinations||"Seventeen agencies" memo about Russian influence on elections||Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit||The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies||Anti Trump Hysteria||MSM as attack dogs of color revolution||Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism|
|Obama administration participation in the intelligence services putsch against Trump||Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Color revolutions||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"||Rosenstein and appointment of the special prosecutor||DNC and Podesta emails leak: blaming Vladimir Putin||Hillary Clinton email scandal||History of American False Flag Operations|
|Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few||Trump vs. Deep State||Internet research agency story as fiasco of Russiagate||Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit||The Real War on Reality||Media as a weapon of mass deception||Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair||Two Party System as polyarchy||National Security State|
|US and British media are servants of security apparatus||MSM as fake news industry||Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Neoconservatism||New American Militarism||Bernie Sanders betrayal of his supporters||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism||Control of the MSM during color revolution is like air superiority in the war||Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite|
The Seekers abandoned their jobs, possessions, and spouses to wait for the flying saucer, but neither the aliens nor the apocalypse arrived. After several uncomfortable hours on the appointed day, Martin received a “message” saying that the group “had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction.” The group responded by proselytizing with a renewed vigour. According to Festinger, they resolved the intense conflict between reality and prophecy by seeking safety in numbers. “If more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly, it must, after all, be correct.”
... [for members of the cult] "prophecies, per se, almost never fail. They are instead component parts of a complex and interwoven belief system which tends to be very resilient to challenge from outsiders. While the rest of us might focus on the accuracy of an isolated claim as a test of a group’s legitimacy, those who are part of that group—and already accept its whole theology—may not be troubled by what seems to them like a minor mismatch. A few people might abandon the group, typically the newest or least-committed adherents, but the vast majority experience little cognitive dissonance and so make only minor adjustments to their beliefs. They carry on, often feeling more spiritually enriched as a result.
"FullOfSchiff" people should be viewed as the members of a new hardcore cult of "Russian collision"
Interestingly, the same neocon/neolib alliance which endorsed George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq is pretty much the same alliance that is now, all these years later, braying for confrontation with Russia. Including the same cast of characters reading from the Iraq-war era playbook.
The whole Mueller investigation was probably the "insurance" about which Strzok talked to Lisa Page. With previous important (and completely fraudulent) step of issuing of Brennan's handpicked analysts so called 17 agencies memo, which gave the official start of Russiagate witch hunt. See realclearpolitics.com, 2017/07/06 ). Russiagate was a clear attempt to entrap Trump as well as unleash neo-McCarthyism hysteria to patch cracks in the neoliberal facade, when establishment candidate is so hated by the US population that it loses general election to a newcomer. As such it is criminal conspiracy by intelligence agencies, and first of all CIA, FBI, and MI6 (with Australian, Estonian, Ukrainian and several other agencies in supporting roles):
likbez , April 20, 2019 1:12 pm
April 20, 2019 11:15 am
"Do you understand that you implicate Obama administration"
They did screw up.
Wrong. The fact that they did not warn/brief Trump suggests that this was an a deliberate and pre-planned attempt to entrap him by initiating Russian contacts by FBI/CIA/MI6 moles
We have some cursory evidence of at least four attempts to link Trump to Russians supposedly conducted by intelligence services ( https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/russiagate/ ):
- Moscow Trump Tower set up (via FBI mole Felix Saters), https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/04/the-fbi-tried-and-failed-to-entrap-trump-by-larry-c-johnson.html
- DNC email setup (via CIA and FBI contractor Crowdstrike ) https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/04/test-it-yourself-the-2-second-rounding-fact-pattern-in-the-dnc-emails-by-william-binney-and-larry-jo.html
- Veselnitskaya Trump tower meeting set up (via MI6 mole Rob Goldstone). https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/04/httpstruepunditcomexclusive-six-u-s-agencies-conspired-to-illegally-wiretap-trump-british-intel-used-as-fr.html
- Papadopoulos set up ( via Josef Misfud (MI6) and Stefan Halper (CIA) ). At the time Halper probably was reporting to the current CIA director Gina Haspel who was at this time CIA station chief in GB. She is a Brennan protégé, of recent Skripals dead ducks hoax fame.
Surveillance was specifically established to collect compromising material on Trump and his associates with high level official in Obama administration (and probably Obama himself) playing coordinating role.
Colonel Lang's blog is a good source of information on those issues with posts by former intelligence specialists.
And please note that I am not a Trump supporter. I resent him and his policies.
Trump is definitely proved to be very dangerous, impulsive and incompetent President (in the pocket of Israel lobby and neocons), who reminds me Bush II.But that does not mean than RussiaGate witch hunt was justified. Israel (via Adelson, Kushner (and connected to him Hassid mafia)) can be implicated in trying to influence the elections. That's given. After all Trump is probably the most pro-Israel President out of the last ten (Johnson might come close). Look at the NYT cartoon -- it is pretty accurate. I see nothing anti-Semitic in it: https://www.jpost.com/International/New-York-Times-internationally-prints-antisemitic-cartoon-of-Trump-Netanyahu-588014
The main lesson from Mueller investigation is the level of control of the Deep state of all branches of the US government. It also looks like tech millionaires are spy agencies' employee (is not Bezos a CIA guy?). Probably success for those guys was at least partially linked to their connection to the deep state.
The working hypothesis about Russiagate is that it has nothing to do with Russia. Like in case of JFK assassination US intelligence agencies went rogue, attempted to stage a coup d'état using false flag operations. They need to be tamed. See also Do Spies Run the World, by Israel Shamir - The Unz Review
This is a pretty grip picture right out of Orwell 1984, but that's the only framework that allows all the known fact to be put logically within it. See also these books The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The Secret Team, the CIA and its allies in control of America and the world, by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.
There some distinct sign of "hatchet job" type of investigation, which we know from JFK assassination investigation:
So in both case American people were lied by the government. In case of Mueller there were several blatant lies which point to the "hatchet job" type of investigation.
In reality this was British-gate and GB can and should be implicated in Russiagate too (MI6: Christopher Steele, Joseph Misfud, Stephan Harper). Like shouting "sugar sugar" does not provide sweets in your mouth, shouting "Putin, Putin, Putin" from MSM pulpits does not implicates Russians. Among long list of foreign powers which tried to influence 2016 election GB is clearly No.1. Russiagate should be renamed into British-gate as MI6 and GCHQ were the key players.
|RussiaGate was a large scale false flag operation directed against Trump and Russia. By assortment of intelligence agencies from at least three countries (the USA, GB, and Australia). With some important help from Estonia and Ukraine.|
IMHO this was a large scale false flag operation directed against Trump and Russia. By assortment of intelligence agencies from at least three countries (the USA, GB, and Australia). With some important help from Estonia and Ukraine. Some important points;
“Sean, we did it. Not me, but our guys, former members of NSA, retired intelligence officers used these tools to break in there and get the information out. That’s what the Democrats don’t want to talk about because it doesn’t fit their narrative,” said Shaffer.
While there are valid reasons to wish Trump impeachment, Mueller or no Mueller (IMHO Trump University scam is enough; money connection with Russian-Jewish oligarchs might also be enough) any argument about Mueller probe should be considered along with the analysis of the criminal role of Obama administration, CIA (Brennan) and MI6 in those events (essentially a color revolution staged against Trump by intelligence agencies with the full support of Clinton wing of Democratic Party and neocon Republicans like McCain).
Mueller proved to be partisan hack and he did not even try to investigate the role on MI6 and CIA in those events. His report does not withstand even superficial scrutiny:
tom , May 7, 2019 at 15:08
Major Mueller Report Omissions Suggest Incompetence Or A Coverup
"false claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia would qualify as a "principal way" in which Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller's second major oversight – which we have touched on repeatedly – is the special counsel's portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.
Weeks after returning from Moscow, Mifsud – a self-described Clinton Foundation member – 'seeded' the rumor that Russia had 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016, according to the Mueller report."
So we have -at least- 4 major omissions in the Mueller investigation and report:
1) the Mueller report failed to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation (and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI).
2) Mueller's portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.
3) Mueller declined to talk to the VIPS, who offered evidence that the DNC servers were not hacked but content was copied onto a disk at the server's location
4) Mueller refused to hear Julian Assange, who offered evidence that it was not the Russians that had provided WikiLeaks with the emails.
Tom , May 7, 2019 at 14:49
And it went all the way to the Top
FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
They were spying on Trump before the election and found nothing
Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment
And it was Fusion GPS that worked with the Russians not Trump
Can anybody explain why Mueller did not interview key players in Russiagate (Brennan, McCabe, Clapper, Obama, Assange, Steele, Gina Haspel; the latter was CIA station chief in GB at the time and probably supervised actions of Stephan Halper and Papadopoulos entrapment (zerohedge 2018-04-04 ) and why he had chosen to rely of existing materials including most probably fraudulent CrowdStrike report about DNC hack. No respectable prosecutor would take any such material because it definitely smells very badly with falsification.
In this sense his report does not even worth the paper on which it is printed. Of may be only as a historical document about amorality and criminality of the neoliberal elite.
And any attempt to view concocted into RussiaGate event not as a false flag operation but as as something that deserve our attention (other then for researcher of the struggle for power of internal factions within the Deep State) are clearly laughable. The reason that Mueller can't go further was probably connected with Barr appointment and feeling that Barr might prosecute Mueller and his team for all "the service to the country" they did (especially And they are completely different from any real or attributed actions of Trump.
They are all have to do with the balance of power between different the Deep State factions including factions within CIA and FBI and NATO (foreign special interests).
And timing of the report reflects the saying "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go": Mueller obstructed for two years any attempt of Trump administration to pursue independent foreign policy (not that Trump really wanted anything like that as appointments of Haley, Haspel. BTW Haspel is Brennan protégé, while Pompeo and Bolton are both Adelson's protégé.
So it is unclear why the Deep State was fighting Trump now, after he completely folded to neocons and globalists. That's a real mystery of American Democracy.
"The foreign country that worked feverishly to meddle in the 2016 Presidential election and the subsequent rule of Donald Trump is the United Kingdom. Russia is the patsy." ~Larry C Johnson
There is a long tail of British actions in Russiagate, some of them really equivalent to blatant interference in the country election. The same situation was observed during Iraq WDM hysteria:
Another, equally remarkable similarity to the period of 2002-3 is the role foreign lobbyists have played in helping to whip up a war fever. As readers will no doubt recall, Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, which served, in effect as an Iraqi government-in-exile, worked hand in hand with the Washington lobbying firm Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey (BKSH) to sell Bush's war on television and on the op-ed pages of major American newspapers.
Chalabi was also a trusted source of Judy Miller of the Times, which, in an apology to its readers on May 26, 2004, wrote : "The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles." The pro-war lobbying of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has also been exhaustively documented .
Though we do not know how widespread the practice has been as of yet, something similar is taking place today. Articles calling for confrontation with Russia over its alleged "hybrid war" with the West are appearing with increasing regularity . Perhaps the most egregious example of this newly popular genre appeared on Jan. 1 in Politico magazine. That essay, which claims, among many other things, that "we're in a war" with Russia comes courtesy of one Molly McKew.
McKew is seemingly qualified to make such a pronouncement because she, according to her bio on the Politico website, served as an "adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government from 2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015." Seems reasonable enough. That is until one discovers that McKew is actually registered with the Department of Justice as a lobbyist for two anti-Russian political parties, Georgia's UMN and Moldova's PLDM.
Records show her work for the consulting firm Fianna Strategies frequently takes her to Capitol Hill to lobby U.S. Senate and Congressional staffers, as well as prominent U.S. journalists at The Washington Post and The New York Times, on behalf of her Georgian and Moldovan clients.
"The truth," writes McKew, "is that fighting a new Cold War would be in America's interest. Russia teaches us a very important lesson: losing an ideological war without a fight will ruin you as a nation. The fight is the American way." Or, put another way: the truth is that fighting a new Cold War would be in McKew's interest – but perhaps not America's.
While you wouldn't know it from the media coverage (or from reading deeply disingenuous pieces like McKew's) as things now stand, the case against Russia is far from certain. New developments are emerging almost daily. One of the latest is a report from the cyber-engineering company Wordfence, which concluded that "The IP addresses that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia."
Indeed, according to Wordfence, "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
On Jan. 4, BuzzFeed reported that, according to the DNC, the FBI never carried out a forensic examination on the email servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russian government. "The FBI," said DNC spokesman Eric Walker, "never requested access to the DNC's computer servers."
What the agency did do was rely on the findings of a private-sector, third-party vendor that was brought in by the DNC after the initial hack was discovered. In May, the company, Crowdstrike, determined that the hack was the work of the Russians. As one unnamed intelligence official told BuzzFeed, "CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate."
Perhaps not. Yet Crowdstrike is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Russia. Crowdstrike's founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch , is also a senior fellow at the Washington think tank, The Atlantic Council, which has been at the forefront of escalating tensions with Russia.
As I reported in The Nation in early January , the connection between Alperovitch and the Atlantic Council is highly relevant given that the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In recent years, it has emerged as a leading voice calling for a new Cold War with Russia.
See Special Counsel Mueller--Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson for interesting details.
Historical events tend to repeat, but this time this is not a farce. The danger of WWWIII increased dramatically due to US neocons subversive operation against their own country. They acted as lobbyists of MIC and Israel, not as responsible citizens. Here is one interesting comment from EconoSpeak blog:
For me the standard of understanding of Russian political situation is Professor Stephen Cohen.
Sorry, but despite all your bragging, you are not even close.
Politically you are aligned with neocons like Robert Kagan and Max Boot. That's a very sad situation for any academic, as they are known lobbyists of MIC. Which means that politically you are just a MIC stooge.
I despise such people. They are all intellectual pigmies, unable to see a bigger picture which is the level of threat to the human civilization. That's why I advice you no longer touch this sensitive topic. You are not intellectually equipped to analyze it. You have no solid philosophic framework and a set of ethical principles that are pre-requisites for this.
Trump current policy toward Russia is just Hillary policy with an orange wig. He acts as a neocon marionette, even more hapless marionette then Bush II.
This positions him as far from a Russian stooge as one can get. The fact that he probably took large bribes from Russian and/or Russian-Israeli oligarchs does not change this one jota.
And in view of the danger to human civilization, your peddling of Russiagate nonsense look completely inappropriate, and even stupid.
This anti-Russia fear-mongering serves to impoverish the US people (aka "deplorable) and line the pockets of "national security parasites" from the Boing to Pentagon brass, plus Israel, which actually acts as a state-based lobbyist for the US MIC.
Again, politically, Trump has proven himself to be an impulsive, stupid, and impotent neocon stooge. I now do not understand why he had run, as that means to take those huge risks of exposing your own dirty laundry and shady dealings. To take such huge risks makes sense if and only if you really want to do something good for the nation, putting yourself under fire, making a personal sacrifice for the good of the nation.
As the result of Russiagate, the Neo-McCarthyism mentality (that you fully support) have already been baked into post Mueller US political atmosphere with the huge bills being delivered to the deluded and hapless US taxpayers.
With two very powerful political factions supporting Neo-McCarthyism things will only get worse and it probably this poisonous atmosphere will last a decade or more.
The best we can hope for at this point is that we avoid a catastrophic mistake that would lead us to a war with Russia that would end the existence of the US. If not human civilization.
P.S. I also am completely disappointed with the position of Sandwichman, whom I previously respected.
Mar 01, 2026 | www.washingtonpost.com
Barr is wrong: Obstruction of justice doesn't require another underlying crime - The Washington Post By Daniel Hemel Daniel Hemel is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago. March 26
It took special counsel Robert S. Mueller III nearly two years to conclude that President Trump may have -- but may not have -- obstructed justice. It took Attorney General William P. Barr and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, only two days to decide that Trump should not be charged with obstruction. How did Barr and Rosenstein make up their minds so quickly on a question that the special counsel struggled with for so long?
Barr sent a letter to Congress on Sunday that offers little explanation for the decision not to prosecute the president. The letter correctly states the elements of obstruction of justice -- corrupt intent, obstructive conduct and a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding -- and then states that Mueller's report "identifies no actions that, in our judgment," satisfy all three criteria. The letter says nothing more about the last two elements of obstruction, but it does offer this about corrupt intent: "While not determinative, the absence of evidence [of collusion] bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction."
That conclusion is questionable for reasons beyond its haste. It's black letter law that a defendant can satisfy the corrupt intent criterion for obstruction even if the defendant himself committed no underlying crime. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently ruled that a defendant could be convicted of obstruction "even if [his] primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation." A court in Utah held in 2013 that a defendant could be liable for obstruction where his only apparent motive was to protect a friend from a criminal charge.
Former Detroit mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick went to jail for obstructing justice in 2008 after he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. And in January, a Navy captain in Florida was indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice after he allegedly misled investigators about his extramarital affair with a civilian employee's spouse. Of course, adultery is not a crime. But interfering with an investigation to cover up adultery certainly is.
[ Trump could still have obstructed justice -- even if he didn't break the law ]
By these standards, it's easy to see what possible motives Trump may have had to obstruct justice, even if no collusion with Russia was involved. He may have wanted, for example, to shield Michael T. Flynn, his first national security adviser, from criminal liability. In February 2017, the president told FBI Director James B. Comey that Flynn "is a good guy," according to Comey , and Trump implored Comey to drop the FBI's investigation of Flynn. Flynn later pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to investigators about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.
Or perhaps the president suspected -- correctly -- that the investigation of his longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen would churn up evidence that Trump paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged sexual encounter the two had just months after Trump's wife, Melania, gave birth to Trump's youngest child, Barron. Trump may have feared the political fallout from revelations that he lied to the American people about his business dealings with Russia, and then instructed his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to lie about conversations with Russian representatives during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Or maybe Trump simply wanted to cover up the fact that the Russian government intervened on his behalf during the race -- even if that intervention occurred independently of Trump's campaign. Trump has only begrudgingly acknowledged that the intelligence community agrees that Russia wanted him to win; ever sensitive about his loss to Democrat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, perhaps he worried that evidence of Russian meddling would cast further doubt on the legitimacy of his presidency.
[ One person the Mueller report didn't 'exonerate'? Vladimir Putin. ]
Of course, the fact that Trump would have had many motives to obstruct justice doesn't mean that he actually did so. Obstruction of justice still requires two more elements beyond corrupt intent: obstructive conduct and a sufficient connection to a pending or contemplated proceeding. The second element -- obstructive conduct -- is arguably the most difficult to establish in Trump's case. Reasonable minds may disagree as to whether the president engaged in obstructive conduct when he fired Comey, tried to fire Mueller and possibly encouraged Cohen to lie to Congress , as Cohen has testified. (Trump has repeatedly said Cohen is lying now.)
Trump or his defenders could argue, for example, that he fired Comey not to interfere in an investigation but because he concluded, as he wrote in his termination letter , that Comey was "not able to effectively lead the Bureau." Comments that Trump made later to NBC News's Lester Holt undermined that explanation , but if charges had been brought, a jury may have concluded that Trump lied to Holt and told the truth in his earlier termination message.
So why did Barr emphasize the absence of collusion -- a fact that is, at most, tangentially relevant to whether Trump obstructed justice?
One possibility is that Mueller's report contains additional evidence of obstructive conduct connected with a contemplated or pending proceeding. What initially looks like the weaker elements of the obstruction case against Trump may be stronger than we think.
A less conspiratorial theory is that Barr simply has an idiosyncratic view of obstruction -- a view that appears to be unmoored from any case law. In his June 2018 memo to top Justice Department officials, Barr -- who at the time was a lawyer in private practice -- opined that "the President's motive in removing Comey and commenting on Flynn could not have been 'corrupt' unless the President and his campaign were actually guilty of illegal collusion."
Barr's view was silly then and is silly now.
Even if Trump's only motive for interfering in the FBI's investigation of Flynn was his personal affection for a loyal aide, the president still could have committed obstruction of justice -- friendship, as mentioned above, is motive enough for obstruction. Barr's memo was roundly criticized in December when the Wall Street Journal first reported its existence. Perhaps that criticism led Barr to double down on his strange and legally unsupportable theory.
Ultimately, understanding what is going on in Barr's mind may be as difficult as understanding what's happening in Trump's. It's hard to see why the attorney general would put so much weight on such a legally flimsy reed. But this much seems clear: Barr's conclusion that Trump did not commit obstruction should persuade no one of the president's innocence.
May 21, 2019 | legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Obstruction of Justice
Also found in: Dictionary , Thesaurus , Acronyms , Wikipedia . Obstruction of Justice
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
The integrity of the judicial system depends on the participants' acting honestly and without fear of reprisals. Threatening a judge, trying to bribe a witness, or encouraging the destruction of evidence are examples of obstruction of justice. Federal and state laws make it a crime to obstruct justice.
Obstruction of justice in the federal courts is governed by a series of criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501–1517), which aim to protect the integrity of federal judicial proceedings as well as agency and congressional proceedings. Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.
Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding. In addition, section 1503 makes it illegal to attempt the Bribery of an official to alter the outcome of a judicial proceeding.
Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.
To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."
Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information. The Watergate scandal of the 1970s involving President richard m. nixon is a classic example of this type of obstruction. A number of Nixon's top aides were convicted of obstruction of justice, including former attorney general john n. mitchell .A federal Grand Jury named Nixon himself as an unindicted coconspirator for the efforts to prevent disclosure of White House involvement in the 1972 Burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.Further readings
Roush, Corey, and Rishi Varma. 1996. "Obstruction of Justice." American Criminal Law Review 33 (spring).
May 21, 2019 | www.unz.com
renfro , says: May 21, 2019 at 2:51 am GMT@tanabear
However, the firing James Comey is completely legal and allowed by the Executive. A prosecutor cannot event a crime of obstruction when the action was perfectly legal
Wrong again ..its obvious none of you know how to find the legal cites on the elements of obstruction. Whether Trump can 'legally' fire someone or not is immaterial .the court (and the law) looks at the INTENT behind the act. Period.
You can legally hire or fire your maid but if your motivation -- intention in either of those acts is to bribe her or threaten her because she knows something about you that could get you in legal trouble. Then it is obstruction.
May 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel published (German) reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid, German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them. He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws. They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair. Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter. Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately stepped down and the conservatives ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky opines on the case:Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view. The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian" puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election. Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new far-right block Natteo Salvini will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray put his finger on the wound:The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties – and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people, especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new 'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions, he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes, we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM | Permalink
james , May 19, 2019 1:40:31 PM | 1b - thanks .. i agree "elaborate sting" and "the video was held back until the right moment"... clearly this was a set up.. strache says he is going to pursue this legally..Bratislav Metulski , May 19, 2019 1:40:51 PM | 2
"working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust." injustices are being done on a constant basis now and being justified by the msm regularly.. i think this is part of the reason people are seeking alternatives - whatever they might be... power to the people..screw the neoliberal agenda and blackmail artists that are so rampant at present...Funny thing is e.g.- a German comedian Jan Böhmerman knew before. Already in April he said in a Video call live in Austian television duringthe TV-prize-giving of the trophy "Romy" that he couldn´t attend personally to receive the price because right know he was sitting together with some FPÖ-buddies in a Russian oligarch-villa on Ibiza, sniffing cocain, drinking and negotiating the takeover of the "Krone-Zeitung" (the biggest rag in Austira, smth like the "Bild" in Germany or "The sun" in Britain).Paul Damascene , May 19, 2019 1:43:18 PM | 3
Böhmers management released a statement yesterday that Böhermann did know before but didn´t name the source he knew it from.
Cui bono?Your article here raises a number of important issues. More or less at random:hallelujah hinton , May 19, 2019 1:55:07 PM | 4
* If I understand your characterization of your political leanings, based on this and on the perspectives MoA offers, I share many of your views. And whereas there may be a certain Schadenfreude at seeing a right-wing, B-team operator reveal himself, I agree that the forces behind the sting itself are of potentially far greater interest (and danger)..
* For every sting and smear such as this that we see, how many others take place sub rosa, corrupting our political and social landscapes, leaving no evidence that might trigger criticism or resistance?
* I'm not sure of how this plays out legally, but this seems not just to have been a sting, but entrapment, in which (if these were law enforcement agents) we could protest that the only illegal activity being proposed, was by those conducting the sting.
* If this was, as you suggest, authored by the BND, then this would be a clear instance of election "meddling" -- though not of the sort that our shining democracies are now being warned against. (At least President Putin will not be accused of conducting it, for once. That oligarch's daughter could have come from anywhere, but of course Russia.) Russia gets smeared is probably the larger aim, rather than this particularly Austrian politician.The "Russian" female is notably very attractive with a slender build. There is a honey-trap angle here as well. This would likely inspire the boasting (in order to impress her) on the part of the wingnut politician.somebody , May 19, 2019 1:56:55 PM | 5I think the word is protofascist. b. you have got a blind spot seeing geopolitics everywhere. Truth is most of this is simply a battle of billionaires. The key to understand the Ibiza video is the product placement. Everybody there drinks Red Bull plus alcohol (I am not sure about the alcohol the loss of control of the politicians who are present suggests cocaine).Arioch , May 19, 2019 1:58:49 PM | 6
The owner of Red Bull is an Austrian billionaire called Dietrich Mateschitz. Mateschitz is a right wing crank building a media empire in Austria including an "investigative platform" called addendum that is something like the Austrian version of Breitbart.
For some reason "addendum" began to shoot against Rene Benzko, an Austrian real estate billionaire, who intends to take over Kronenzeitung.
And guess what, Rene Benzko was mentioned in the video "as a friend", and a large part of the conversation centered on taking over Kronenzeitung something Rene Benzko is involved in.
Strache, Vice Chancellor of Austria, explained in the video for every Austrian to understand, that his party's scheme is based on accepting illegal contributions via a ngo, and lowering taxes in return. According to what he says in the video he also intends to charge for water by selling the right to the Latvian/Russien "niece of a Russian oligarch" or someone else prepared to pay to his party's ngo.
Anybody who is not a billionaire voting for FPÖ after this must be braindead.Sasha , May 19, 2019 2:05:52 PM | 7> with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin
Putin himself though stresses his non involvement in that party, he also tried to bootstrap organizations that could supplant or even challenge U.R. at least in some niches.
While U.R. probably is party of Russian ruling elites, it is hardly one-man-show of LDPR/Zhirinovsky kind and whether Putin is "gray cardinal" of U.R. is very questionable.It is said that children and drunk people always say the truth... Why is it not to be taken into account what he said once drunk enough?Bratislav Metulski , May 19, 2019 2:20:38 PM | 8
For to be a strong leftist, b, you spend a great effort in discharging this man, while whitewashing the far-right saying they are no danger for our societies and assuring that they are clean, when that is a thing you do not know since they have not had yet the possibility to rule.
They are neither cleaner nor inocuous for our societies. For starters they have chosen as scapegoat the migrants when who is to blame for the wave of migration is the US, NATO and their imperial ambitions, so as to throw poor against poor and that way the elites could continue quietly looting us, while we fight each other. You will never heard anything agsint banks ans elites from anybody in the far-right.
FYI, it is not Matteo Salvini who is forming a coalition of the far-right to conflude to European elections, but it is Bannon from his HQ in a Cisterciense monastery in Italy who is commanding this operation. Salvini is really a piece, having supported Guiado and the Venezuelan coup intend, and said what he would do with the Yellow Vests , "I don't go to the Yellow Vests with Molotov cocktails, if anything, I put them in prison" ...
Then it is AfD, who goes also in the block, whose members have claimed the Germans should be proud of the performance of the German Army during both WW....
Then Vox, financed by MEK and Israeli lobby and promoted by Bannon and the WH, who only wear clear neoliberal economic policies in their, for the rest, confusing program.
The best to test what the far-right will do in Europe is taking a look at what is happening in Brazil during these last days, an attack on education and research as if it was a military target ...This, after the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem and wide support to coup d´etat in Venezuela...He is also widely supported and financed by the US and Zionists.
The far-right is the Troy Horse of transnational corporations and capital and already discredited neoliberal stablishment which comes now disguised under the softening label of "populists". Beware, there seems to be a coordinated effort at several blogs in the ten previous days of the European elections to whitewash the far-right.@4 hallelujah hintonJackrabbit , May 19, 2019 2:26:38 PM | 9
Telepolis one of the oldest and biggest non-commercial online news and discussion platforms in Germany states in the following article, commenting on his statement at his resignation declaration:
"Glaubt er, man wäre bei Alkohol nachsichtiger? Offenbar schien er sich betrunken kaum mehr im Griff zu haben - und dies ist wohlgemerkt seine Erklärung für die Äußerungen im Video. Erst gegen Ende beginnt er eigenes Fehlverhalten einzuräumen und bittet insbesondere seine Frau um Verzeihung, mit der er ein wenige Monate altes Kind hat. Kenner Straches ahnten an dieser Stelle bereits, dass dieser sich bereits für Dinge entschuldigt, die zu diesem Zeitpunkt der Öffentlichkeit noch gar nicht bekannt sind."
Does he (Strache) really assume he would get more indulgence by blaming it on the alcolhol? Obviously when being drunken he wasn´t in control of himself anymore - and this is actually his explanation for his statements in the video. Somehow at the end he finally begins admitting own misconduct and especially asks his wife for forgiveness, with which he has a few months old child. Experts on Strache suspected from this moment on, that he apologized for things which at this moment are not known to the public, yet"
So this very much hints something more. Right now there is a debate of cocain being visible on the table but this accusation points more towards schnickle with a babe imho. The babe to his right is not that ugly, admittely.somebody @5:Zanon , May 19, 2019 2:30:32 PM | 0battle of billionaires.... Anybody who is not a billionaire voting for FPÖ after this must be braindead.Anyone who believes voting will change anything is braindead. Only supporting protest Movements (like Gillet Jeune) and free press/citizen journalism (Wikileaks/Assange) will have any real effect.Great piece - I dont see how Strache actually made anything wrong or atleast nothing not normal to politicians that constantly seek out support by big, powerful people. Most likely the deep state in Austria struck FPÖ just like FBI struck Trump.Arioch , May 19, 2019 2:36:33 PM | 1
As expected the hysteria of "russian" meddling have now publicized to weaken FPÖ in the EU election. Winners? NATO/US parties.@hallelujah hinton #4Sasha , May 19, 2019 2:38:57 PM | 2
Also notice how she pretended to be a niece.
Not some very close relative like daughter or sister, which may be fearsome, as "russian mafia" oligarch could be expected to "protect" her of ladykillers viciously. But also not some far relative who would be seen alien and have no financial support.
Just enough distance to be safe to hit on and try to share the oligarch's money. It was both honey&gold trap.Clueless Joe , May 19, 2019 2:44:05 PM | 4Anyone who believes voting will change anything is braindead.
@Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 19, 2019 2:26:38 PM | 9
If voting would be such a waste, why would had taken so hard and long to achieve voting for minorities and women? Why the parties go to such efforts to campaign and disguise themselves as wolves with sheepskin like the far-right?
Why would certain forces need to go to such editorial coordinated efforts through their several blogs out there to give an impression of certain candidates which is opposite to what they really are? Wikilieaks/Assange are part of this efforts, btwMetulski:Sasha , May 19, 2019 2:44:10 PM | 5
Seems indeed to be a honeypot aspect to the entrapment, and it's quite possible Strache stepped down at once to avoid that part to come to light, so that the public revelations would be limited to the economic shenanigans and influence-peddling level.
Also, this goes to show that the bulk of our Western politicians, across all the political spectrum, are a bunch of mediocre and quite corrupt fools. For him not to smell that this was a setup from the very first minute, it must be that such proposals are common place all across the board - which will only reinforce my suspicion that our societies, peoples and mankind as a whole would only benefit if we fully wiped out our economic, financial and political establishment and started from scratches.Spanish Colonel ( ret.) Pedro Baños, who was postulated for head of the CNI by the Socialist government of Pedro Sanchez, was object of slander campiagn as "pro-Russian" by the Spanish cluster of Integrity Initiative, only for declarations on the prejudice of sanctions for Spain, and nobody made such noise....hallelujah hinton , May 19, 2019 3:03:31 PM | 6Blackmail, smear campaigns, various traps via honey or corruption, hookers and blow, gay sex, paedofilia, or what-have-you, - all or in combination. Politicians are "all" compromised in these ways. Buck the system or threaten the status quo - whereby it gets somebody's serious attention and the shite hits the fan.the pair , May 19, 2019 3:16:52 PM | 7
Enforcement and and penalties are selective. Selective enforcement. It's how "The Law" operates. Not defending the wingnut pig in the article. I appreciate Sasha's Trojan Horse allegory above.wow...a bunch of elitist neoliberals with contempt for anyone lacking 10 zeroes on their paychecks and zero useful policies use "russian collusion" to entrap and embarrass a pseudo-right wing politician. who could ever imagine such a scenario? and why learn from the masses you represent when james o'keefe gives you all the inspiration you need?karlof1 , May 19, 2019 3:24:47 PM | 8
but at least they blocked the ascension of someone who would trade political favors for money. that kind of nonsense simply won't do in western society.Thanks for this explanation, b! I first saw this reported at Geroman's Twitter and used machine translation of the article he linked, but it lacked the context which you provided. This incident is subsumed within the larger conflict that's trying to keep EU from combining with BRI/EAEU, which means its roots/culprits are NATO/Outlaw US Empire--it points to desperation on their part.Jackrabbit , May 19, 2019 3:25:34 PM | 9the pair @17somebody , May 19, 2019 3:34:51 PM | 0
Some will fail to see the sarcasm. Best to use the /sarc tag.Posted by: hallelujah hinton | May 19, 2019 1:55:07 PM | 4Copeland , May 19, 2019 4:01:44 PM | 1
Sorry, you don't see the Latvian/Russian woman. You see Gudenus' wife who is from Serbia. Whatever the publishing papers got, it was a copy. More will come out.The savages in this neoliberal order use the secret services to subvert democracy. Deception and manipulation are the means used to corrupt the public domain. They would push the most pliable and ruthless leaders into office. Catastrophe and violence and disinformation are their most powerful weapons. But I still think that political processes and elections do matter; and what counts is a struggle to improve and reform the system of government. Doing our best to protect and maintain the integrity of electoral processes is something that requires both protests and political campaigns.BM , May 19, 2019 4:14:36 PM | 2Sasha , May 19, 2019 4:21:50 PM | 3So this very much hints something more. Right now there is a debate of cocain being visible on the table but this accusation points more towards schnickle with a babe imho. The babe to his right is not that ugly, admittely.
Posted by: Bratislav Metulski | May 19, 2019 2:20:38 PM | 8
The very strong implication certainly seems to be that there may be further video of Strache sleeping with the honey pot. He obviously knows what happened that night. If there were video cameras hidden everywhere, that was obviously one of the intentions behind the sting from the outset.
On the issue of "populism" and right-wing parties I confess I have a problem. I certainly want to see the Establishment thrashed, and especially in next week's EU elections, and there is no question that at the moment the right-wing parties have far more potential to upset the establishment than the left. If "Populist" parties are able to radically upset the EU Parliament, that should bring a much-needed hammer and axe to the anti-populist activities of the EU, and hopefully lead to the breakup of the EU.
On the other hand, unlike B, I do have extremely strong worries about the rising power of the far right and their connections to Nazis and neo-Nazis. I am concerned - even without the involvement of Bannon, but far more so with - that the rise of "populism" is a calculated policy of a Nazi segment of the Establishment that is designed specifically to usher in an international Nazi movement across Europe and Latin America under the leadership of and proxies of the - ever more and more Nazi behaving - US (which itself is in so many very real ways descended from Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party and the Japanese war criminals including Bush's family, tight connections with Nazi war criminals in the CIA, and historical leadership figures in the CIA). The large scale and extremely high level infiltration of hardcore Nazis in the German security services, Interior Ministry, Army, and CDU politics is a ticking timebomb waiting for its moment. There seems to be similar high level Nazi infiltration in many other countries.
We have to be careful what we wish for!
B, please do an article on the Nazi penetration of the German security services, Interior Ministry, Army, CDU etc, and links to the NSU affair, shredding of millions of documents by the Interior Ministry when demanded by the courts as evidence, links with the Board members and advisory board members of German big business especially Siemens and Deutche Bank and Bayer, etc.On how there is real danger with these wolves on sheepskin who only try to divide and conquer the working masses of the world, this old article by Ho Chi Minh on the importance of class conscience and the great labor of the University of the East in the former USSR to get workers of the world conscous and united in the common struggle. Also on the importance of having the right to vote:Bacchante , May 19, 2019 4:38:44 PM | 4Colonialism is a leech with two suckers, one of which sucks the metropolitan proletariat and the other that of the colonies. If we want to kill this monster, we must cut off both suckers at the same time. If only one is cut off, the other will continue to suck the blood of the proletariat, the animal will continue to live, and the cut–off sucker will grow again. The Russian Revolution has grasped this truth clearly. That is why it is not satisfied with making fine platonic speeches and drafting "humanitarian" resolutions in favor of oppressed peoples, but it teaches them to struggle; and helps them spiritually, as proclaimed by Lenin in his theses on the colonial question. To the Baku Congress, twenty–one Eastern nations sent delegates. Representatives of Western workers' parties also participated in the work of this congress. For the first time, the proletariat of the conquering Western States and that of the subject Eastern countries fraternally joined hands and deliberated in common on the best means to defeat their common enemy, imperialism .
Following this historic congress, despite internal and external difficulties, revolutionary Russia has never hesitated to come to the help of peoples awakened by its heroic and victorious revolution. One of its first important acts was the founding of the University of the East.(...)
The sixty–two nationalities represented at the University form a "Commune." Its chairman and functionaries are elected every three months by all the students.
A student delegate takes part in the economic and administrative management of the University. All must regularly and in turn work in the kitchen, the library, the club, etc. All "misdemeanors" and disputes are judged and settled by an elected tribunal in the presence of all comrades. Once a week, the "Commune" holds a meeting to discuss the international political and economic situation. From time to time, meetings and evening parties are organized where the amateur artists introduce the art and culture of their country.
The fact that the Communists not only treat the "inferior natives of the colonies" like brothers, but that they get them to participate in the political life of the country, is highly characteristic of the "barbarity" of the Bolsheviks. Treated in their native country as "submissive subjects" or "protéges," having no other right but that to pay taxes, the Eastern students, who are neither electors nor eligible for election in their own country, from whom the right to express their political opinion is withdrawn, in the Soviet Union take part in the election of the Soviets and have the right to send their representatives to the Soviets. Let our brothers of the colonies who vainly seek a change of nationality make a comparison between bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy.
These students have suffered themselves and have witnessed the sufferings of others. All have lived under the yoke of "high civilization," all have been victims of exploitation and oppression by foreign capitalists . Moreover, they passionately long to acquire knowledge and to study. They are serious and full of enthusiasm. They are entirely different from the frequenters of the boulevards of the Latin Quarter, the Eastern students in Paris, Oxford, and Berlin. It can be said without exaggeration that under the roof of this University is the future of the colonial peoples.
The colonial countries of the Near and Far East, stretching from Syria to Korea, cover an extent of more than 15 million square kilometers and have more than 1,200 million inhabitants. All these immense countries are now under the yoke of capitalism and imperialism. Although their considerable numbers should be their strength, these submissive peoples have never yet made any serious attempts to free themselves from this yoke. Not yet having realized the value of international solidarity, they have not known how to unite for the struggle. Relationships between their countries are not yet established as they are among the peoples of Europe and America. They possess gigantic strength and do not yet realize it. The University of the East, assembling all the young, active, and intelligent leaders of the colonized countries, has fulfilled a great task, namely:
-It teaches to the future vanguard militants the principles of class struggle, confused in their minds by race conflicts and patriarchal customs.
-It establishes between the proletarian vanguard of the colonies a close contact with the Western proletariat, thus preparing the way for the close and effective cooperation which will alone ensure the final victory of the international working class.
-It teaches the colonized people, hitherto separated from one another, to know one another and to unite, by creating the bases of a future union of Eastern countries, one of the wings of the proletarian revolution.
-It sets the proletariat of colonialist countries and example of what they can and must do in favor of their oppressed brothers .
This is why it is needed to throw the workers from the West against the migrants from the East and South, to avoid the invincible force they would constitute together. This dirty work is made by the far-right in the name of corporate liberal elites. They can play that they fight each other, but as soon as they get seats at the European Parliament, you will find the previous allegedly opponents all together aligned in the same Eurogroup. Time to time.It is a wonder Strache's remark "Journalists are the biggest whores on the planet" and how he says he can subvert an entire media outlet to his political agenda by even firing the few remaining fringe elements. Yet here we can still talk about he was drunk, how his being set up was unjust, and how the poor guy will have to miss his lovers' right cause in Italy. Those vulgar masses are at it again! There can be no justification about the masses' support of far-right causes and the clowns like him. If you think otherwise it is the likes of moonofalabama next in line to be "fired", or eliminated. Legitimize their causes and it is Germany in 1920s all over again.Walter , May 19, 2019 4:56:04 PM | 5
Two wrongs do not make a right, unfortunately."Left/right", I agree, is nearly without semantic value. Nevertheless class interests remain...how is it that this is so? Think about that, comrades.Pnyx , May 19, 2019 5:04:18 PM | 6
And then consider wsws report about "At the annual meeting of the Bundeswehr reserve in autumn 2016, Veith announced: "I dream that in 2026 there will be a provincial regiment in each state with a charismatic commander, a troop flag and an organization of between 800 and 2,000 reservists to support the police and the Bundeswehr in emergency situations." " see> "German government prepares troops for domestic missions" @ wsws.org
Considering the overall aspects, it's rational to expect all parties in Europe to make plans, is it not? Of course the working class is not permitted to make such plans...is it?I don't think Strache is as harmless as you portray him, B. You fall for his defence strategy if you attribute all his statements to the influence of alcohol. At that time, the man was very confident that he would soon be at the levers of power, which then materialized. It remains to be proven whether he did not put into practice anything of what he talked about at that house in Ibiza. After all, he was talking about the by far most influential newspaper in Austria.Adrian E. , May 19, 2019 5:25:25 PM | 7
Of course it is true that it is the neoliberal globalisers who have brought us to where we stand today. But that doesn' make people like Strache and Salvini any less dangerous. If they rise to total power, the result will be a naked dictatorship. Strache was beaten with his own weapons, you don't have to be under any illusions.
I agree with you that this is not the big setback for the right the mainstream parties dream of. But it won't help the fascists in spe in the future either.Who could have ordered such an elaborate sting operation?Michael Droy , May 19, 2019 5:33:51 PM | 8
A first association might be the dirty, deceptive campaigning SPÖ used against Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) - the Silberstein affair -, but I think the methods that were chosen are too different to make a common source likely, Strache was targeted in a much more sophisticated way. The Silberstein affair may, however, be the reason why the tapes have partially been published now rather than before the last Austrian elections - at that time, dirty campaigning might have been discredited too much for the tape to have the desired effect,
The sophisticated operation using actors and a villa prepared with hidden cameras and microphones shows that this is hardly a normal case of dirty campaigning by political opponents. Most likely, either it was an action by a secret service or someone with deep pockets hired former secret agents.
If it was an action by secret services, the most plausible explanation seems to be that Western secret services targeted Strache because FPÖ is one of the parties who is in favor of restoring normal relations with Russia.
François Fillon comes to mind, a French conservative candidate who also had a quite a friendly attitude towards Russia - shortly before the elections, it was revealed (at least claimed) that Fillon had given his wife ficticious employment, and Fillon lost popularity, which helped Macron enormously.
Probably, some of the things Strache said during this sting operation were inacceptable, and Fillon may also not be innocent, but if there is a systematic selective targeting of European politicians who want to normalize relations with Russia by secret services, that would be a huge problem for democracy.
In the case of Strache and FPÖ, a different motive may also be plausible. There are connections between FPÖ and neonazis, and there are, in my view, legitimate concerns that Strache is too close to such far-right networks. I don't think it is good when right-wing populists whose rise is mainly due to the unpopularity of the neoliberal elites are equated with Nazis too quickly.
But in the case of FPÖ, this is less far-fetched than in the case of other European right-wing parties - historically, Nazis played an important role in FPÖ in post-war Austria, and it is one of the current right-wing parties that probably has more connections to the extreme right (e.g. via Burschenschaften) than others. I could imagine that someone might have ordered and financed the sting operation out of antifascist principles. While I may recognize the motivation as ethical and even partially agree with it, I don't think the right means were chosen, and such dirty methods can backfire."While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties"somebody , May 19, 2019 5:35:30 PM | 9
Quite. It seems to me that only the Right and the Left have a clue right now, because they have an instinctive mistrust of what they are told in the media.
People like "b" and Craig Murray are to be thanked for explaining that to us middling voters.
You miss the most glaring "injustice". That which shows that GDP in most western countries had doubled in the last 30 odd years, that earnings for the top quartile have gone up by factors of 3 or 4. But that median earnings in US are unchanged, and in say UK are only up 10% or so (unless one is seeking to buy one's own house or flat).
All the improvements in inequality from 1930s to 1980s have been reversed in full. "Populists" (or better "anti-elitists") are driven mostly by sheer anger at how a small group had taken all the Economic gains of the last 35 years.Posted by: Pnyx | May 19, 2019 5:04:18 PM | 26brian , May 19, 2019 5:37:28 PM | 0
I don't know what b. saw in the video what I saw was a discussion of an Orban like take over of Austria by FPÖ.
In other news people are arguing the following
- who will profit most - ÖVP
- why was the video not published after it was produced in 2017 - because ÖVP wanted a coalition with FPÖ
- why was it published now - ÖVP has been renting advertising space for weeks for an election in September (renting before the video came out), Sebastian Kurz will be the saviour who will get the disappointed FPÖ vote
- why the emphasis on Kronenzeitung,
who were the people producing the video
why Red Bull everywhere - Red Bull media empire billionaire Dietrich Mateschitz publicly announced that he would back Sebastian Kurz in 2017
ÖVP/Kurz/Mateschitz have moved so far to the right that there is not much space for FPÖ anyway. His problems will return when he needs another coalition.'The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in east Europe'Erelis , May 19, 2019 6:09:06 PM | 1
other?While the right wing parties in Europe don't have a problem with Putin, it does seem that much of the Western European establish has gone full McCarthyite hysterical where they see any contact for any reason with a Russian is automatically criminal. Aside from being a setup it relied the underlying false flag of presenting the woman as a Russian (and hence guility of some crime against the Austrians).S , May 19, 2019 6:36:42 PM | 2
In fact, a suggestion for a column--personal impressions on whether everyday Europeans are falling for anti-Russian propaganda. Polls in the US indicate that Americans simply do not care (they could believe it, but not effecting their daily lives).1. The ER (United Russia) party was founded by Sergey Shoygu, Yuriy Luzhkov, and Mintimer Shaymiev. Its chairman is Dmitriy Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin. Putin is not even a member of ER. Putin is the leader of ONF (All-Russia People's Front), which is a nation-wide discussion platform for politicians, professionals, and NGOs.Piotr Berman , May 19, 2019 6:37:32 PM | 3
2. Russian billionaire Igor Makarov denies having a niece: "I was the only child in the family." ( Forbes.ru , in Russian).
3. In 2016, Joseph Mifsud invited George Papadopoulos to Rome and introduced him to "Putin's niece" with the intent of smearing Trump as "Russian puppet" and destroying his election chances. In 2017, someone (who?) invited Heinz-Christian Strache to Ibiza and introduced him to "Russian billionaire's niece" with the intent of smearing Strache as "Russian puppet" and destroying his party's election chances. Notice a pattern?
4. This is a clear case of Germany interfering in Austrian elections. Austria should deport 60 German diplomats, shut down German embassy in Vienna, and impose sanctions on Germany. Also put a German girl interested in Austrian politics in jail for 18 months.Thinking about it, after revealing e-mail of HRC, Podesta etc. were published, their core supporters were enraged about the dirty trick and did not pay attention to the disclosed content, while for the core opponents of HRC she was already sufficiently vilified so the net change in voting intentions that can be attributed to that incident was modest.Piotr Berman , May 19, 2019 6:45:53 PM | 4
Leaving aside the discussion of of various factors in that election, this public reaction is typical. Actually, in both cases the core supporters may be energized by the suspicion that this trick was performed by a foreign government. I do not think that there is a particular hostility toward Germany in Felix Austria, but the to the right wing Merkel government is like red cape for a bull. The women who unleashed a wave of refugees. On top of that, traditionally major parties of Austria gained reputation of dirty patronage, so the voters who care about that issue probably do not vote for them.
I do not expect Austrians to demand expulsions of German diplomats -- interference in our democracy -- or other sanctions, but nevertheless it stinks. Making sting operations on politicians has corrupt potential even if it is done by domestic law enforcement, but foreign intelligence services really do not have any excuse.
Thinking about it, the stings against George Papadopoulos described in his book were remarkably similar.Great minds think alike, S!Uncoy , May 19, 2019 6:49:33 PM | 5
That said, Austrians have a reputation of good manners etc., they will not unload their frustration on a girl. BTW, why there are suspicions of Germany being involved? Again, even extremist Austrians probably would like to have some proof before doing anything. I guess, America is indeed exceptional.For all those of you whining about the corruption of Strache, this is how business and politics is done in Austria. Strache was just talking about the FPÖ's fair share after an election which they would win.somebody , May 19, 2019 7:11:44 PM | 6
This all starts with Austrian's Presidential Election of 2016. The FPÖ won the presidential election a couple of years ago in May 2016. After the bell, postal votes overturned it! – postal votes more than 90% in favour of the establishment candidate Van der Bellen. Some constituencies full of Van der Bellen votes turned out to have 148% turn out. There was a court case by the FPÖ about procedure and hinting at ballot falsification. The case was judged by a (non-corrupt but under serious pressure) judge to have enough merit that the elections had to be annulled and the election rerun six months later . Austria went without a president at all for six months!
For six months the mainstream Austrian media campaigned non-stop against the FPÖ and Norbert Hofer. Huge efforts were made for voter turnout (it included huge bussing of potential anti-FPÖ constituencies and bribing pensioners to vote against the FPÖ via parties and cakes). With all of that, Van der Bellen scraped in on 4 December 2016, by 348,231 votes. Despite the non-stop anti-FPÖ propaganda and banging on drums, votes for Hofer's fell by less than 100,000 (95,993 votes to be exact). It's just that with six months to prepare the establishment had found enough "dead souls" to win the second round.
In the parliamentary elections of 15 October 2017, the FPÖ were set to win a strong majority in parliament. To defeat the FPÖ and Strache, the conservatives (Völkspartei) were forced to elect a male model non-university graduate 30 year old sex symbol with no work experience outside of politics as party leader. Of course Sebastian Kurz was mainly a figurehead for establishment figures in the venerable Völkspartei. Kurz does have a mind of his own though (I had the opportunity to interact with him personally at a local political discussion group in 2015) and it's hard to know exactly how much of his policy is dictated to him and how much is off his own bat.
Going back to Austrian corruption, there are enormous sums at stake. There is a long entrenched system of corruption in the establishment parties, the Völkspartei and the SPÖ. Strabag does win most of the government contracts. Favour is regularly granted on quid pro basis. The media landscape is very partisan and mostly for sale. Kurz's spiritual predecessor as a powerful head of the Völkspartei if not direct predecessor Wolfgang Schüssel was forced to retire from politics in 2011 due to never-ending corruption scandals. Schüssel's longstanding finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser was caught carrying bags of cash to Lichtenstein and is still under investigation. If his mother-in-law were not the richest woman in Austria (Swarovski Crystal) and devoted to her daughter (Grasser's wife), he would long ago have been in jail.
Politically, Grasser knows where a lot of the bodies are buried from the Schlüssel political machine so either he has to be kept out of jail or he may take others down with him. In elite Austrian circles turning informant would be considered unsportsmanlike so there's an uneasy truce still fought to this day in the courts where Grasser is kept out of jail via procedural methods (detect a pattern) and Grasser doesn't rat out the others.
Strache's sin is not planning to use the advantages which accrue to the governing Austrian party but getting caught out talking about it. Strache is something of a lout, not terribly loyal (he was the Brutus who threw Jörg Haider under the bus in 2005 in a palace putsch). He's a smoker in power who used his power to overturn some very positive anti-smoking laws. But he's less corrupt than any of his equivalents in the Völkspartei and is only a nose ahead of the his equivalents in the SPÖ. His politics and policies of Austria for Austrians are pretty simple. Hence people vote for these policies.
Here's a sample of the SPÖ's wares in the 2010 Vienna elections:
- Zu viel Fremdes tut niemandem gut. (Too many foreigners [or more literally: Too much foreign] does nobody well.)
- Wir bewahren unsere Heimatstadt. Die SPÖ macht sie uns fremd. (We maintain our homeland-city. The SPÖ makes it foreign.)
- Wir glauben an unsere Jugend. Die SPÖ an Zuwanderung. (We believe in our youth. The SPÖ in immigration.)
- Wir schützen freie Frauen. Die SPÖ den Kopftuchzwang (We protect free women. The SPÖ protects the compulsory veil.)
- Mehr Mut für unser Wiener Blut (More courage for our Viennese blood.)
- Uns geht's um die Wiener (To us, it's about the Viennese)
The FPÖ has historically been weakest in Vienna but in 2010 they took 27% of the vote in this SPÖ stronghold, their first step in what has been a steady march to power.
Anyone who does not directly have his or her family's nose in the EU trough at this point knows that the policies espoused by transatlantic puppets like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron push our countries and our continent towards self-destruction. Life in Europe, post-1968 and pre-2013, has been pretty damn good. There's absolutely no good reason for us to rip up our traditions or turn into a continent of immigrants and mobile job seekers. We instinctively abhor what is happening to our nations. By nature Strache is inclined this way himself (he's no great thinker) and has the good sense to ride the wave.Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 19, 2019 6:45:53 PM | 34somebody , May 19, 2019 7:21:16 PM | 7
As Strache explains in the video, Austrian dirty tricks are done "via another country".For all those of you whining about the corruption of Strache, this is how business and politics is done in Austria. Strache was just talking about the FPÖ's fair share after an election which they would win.Hoarsewhisperer , May 19, 2019 7:29:57 PM | 8
So why did he step down?
Here's a sample of the SPÖ's wares in the 2010 Vienna elections:
You mean FPÖ wares ....somebody , May 19, 2019 8:15:54 PM | 9
"This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:"
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
"The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false..."
I can't agree that Spiegel's attitude to Strache's party is condescending toward the working class. Right-wing parties tend to spout a lot of aggressively authoritarian spin tank bullshit to encourage voters to tune out when a R-w politician is telling them what to think. If Strache is adept at separating fact from fiction and superfluous verbiage, then people would appreciate his candor.
In a Democracy, and in theory at least, politicians are supposed to represent and defend the views of the people who voted for them, not vested intere$t$. Or so we've been led to believe...
I'll always remember Spiegel as the folks whose photo-journalists torpedoed Crooked Hillary's feeble-minded Cheonan (NK-SK) bullshit. That story vanished overnight. It's not even referred to in NK smear campaigns. Dead & buried.Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 19, 2019 7:29:57 PM | 38Piotr Berman , May 19, 2019 9:05:45 PM | 0
In a Democracy, and in theory at least, politicians are supposed to represent and defend the views of the people who voted for them, not vested intere$t$. Or so we've been led to believe...
You are making this theory up.
Let's take the American constitution .We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
The German constitution is absolutely clear that members of parliament represent all of the people (ie different views and interests) and are bound by their own judgement and conscience only.
As we are discussing Austria, lets see what the Austrian constitution says. Austria has "linguistic and cultural diversity" and the protection of its grown native peoples in its constitution, this means Slovenian, Croatian, Czech, Slovakian, Roma and Hungarian. So the Austrian constitution has a concept of a multinational state where different peoples grow and are protected even if the Viennese "Stammtisch" does not like them.
There is no "democratic theory" that suggests representatives should follow the uninformed and prejudiced views of their electorate against their better judgement.
Strache seems to have specialized in "fake news" - ie mostly invented stuff claiming Muslims, immigrants or whoever were treated in a better way than native Austrians or threatened native Austrians.
It is a very convenient technique when you plan to cut social services, you have someone to blame.To those who fill that politics of Strache are obnoxious and that justifies entrapment, remembers that methods of that type are not improvised, and that means that there is an apparatus that does it. We noted similarities with provocations against George Papadopoulos. In the latter case the target was cautious, after all, we had to be well aware of such methods. But anyone who is despised by NATO establishment are similar group can be on the receiving end, think about Assange.
May 19, 2019 | dissidentvoice.orgAn honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police, over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national parks and women's equality while directing ever more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie Sanders said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled " Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127), when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled " Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled " Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms, but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion, debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform" promoted by her husband. According to this study from the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice "reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least) about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and Michigan Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article " Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he (Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in his article " Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. She calls out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast with Rachel Maddow taunting John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant support from US troops. A recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As pointed out here , "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Instead of pointing out that Trump has betrayed his anti-war campaign promises, corporate media (and some Democratic Party outlets) seem to be undermining the candidate with the strongest anti-war message. An article at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) says, " Corporate media target Gabbard for her Anti-Interventionism, a word they can barely pronounce ."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat of that disaster. As indicated in the Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at email@example.com . Read other articles by Rick .
May 14, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
Russia-gate has shed any premise of being about Russian interference, writes Daniel Lazare, but the idea that America may in anyway be responsible for its own fate is of course unthinkable.
By Daniel Lazare
Special to Consortium News
Americans used to think that Russia-gate was about a plot to hack the 2016 election. They were wrong. Russia-gate is really about an immense conspiracy to do four things:
- No. 1: Ratchet up tensions with Russia to ever more dangerous levels;
- No. 2: Show that Democrats are even more useless than people imagined;
- No. 3: Persecute Julian Assange;
- No. 4: Re-elect Donald Trump as president.
This was the takeaway from Mitch McConnell's devastating " case closed " speech last week in which the Senate majority leader jeered at President Barack Obama for mocking Mitt Romney's claim (seven years ago now) that Russia was America's "number one geopolitical foe ." As Obama famously replied during that presidential debate: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
But that was so 2012. Now, says McConnell, it looks like Romney was right:
"We'd have been better off if the administration hadn't swept [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's invasion and occupation of Georgia under the rug or looked away as Russia forced out western NGO's and cracked down on civil society. If President Obama hadn't let Assad trample his red line in Syria or embraced Putin's fake deal on chemical weapons, if the Obama administration had responded firmly to Putin's invasion and occupation of Ukraine in 2014, to the assassination of Boris Nemtsov in 2015, and to Russia intervention in Syria -- maybe stronger leadership would have left the Kremlin less emboldened, maybe tampering with our democracy wouldn't have seemed so very tempting.
"Instead," McConnell went on, "the previous administration sent the Kremlin a signal they could get away with almost anything, almost anything. So is it surprising that we got the brazen interference detailed in special counsel Mueller's report?"
Lies and Distortions
Like so much out of Congress these days, this was a farrago of lies and distortions. It wasn't Moscow that started the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, but Tbilisi . While Russia has indeed cracked down on U.S.-backed NGO's, Washington has done the same by forcing Russia's highly successful news agency RT to register as a foreign agent and by sentencing Maria Butina, a Russian national studying at American University, to 18 months in prison for the crime of hobnobbing with members of the National Rifle Association. The charge that Syrian President Bashar al Assad "trampled" Obama's red line by using chemical weapons is hardly as clear-cut as imperial propagandists like to believe – to say the least – while the agreement between Putin and former Secretary of State John Kerry to rid Syria of chemical weapons was not fake at all, but an example, increasingly rare unfortunately, of diplomacy being used to prevent an international crisis from getting out of hand.
And so on ad nauseum . But what could Democrats say in response given that they've spent the last three years trying to out-hawk the GOP? Answer: nothing. All they could do was try to turn tables on McConnell by charging him with not being anti-Russian enough. Thus, New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer accused him of " aiding and abetting " Moscow while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin accused him of running interference for Putin because he "feels the Russians were on the side of the Republicans in 2016 and just might be again in 2020."
Democrats Feed the Super Hawks
The result: a Democratic consensus that Russia can't be trusted and that America must put itself on a war footing to prevent Putin from "toppl[ing] the mighty oak that has been our republic for two hundred years," as Schumer put it. It's an across-the-board agreement that the long-awaited Mueller report has only strengthened by regurgitating the intelligence-community line that "[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and then cherry-picking the facts to fit its preconceived thesis. (See " Top Ten Questions About the Mueller Report ," May 6.)
Democrats claim to oppose National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, but the anti-Russian hysteria they promote strengthens the hand of such super-hawks. It makes military conflict more likely, if not with Russia then with perceived Russian surrogates such as Venezuela or Iran.
Schiff increasingly unhinged.
Simultaneously, it backfires on Democrats by making them look weak and foolish as they argue that even though the Mueller report says "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government," somehow "significant evidence of collusion" still exists, as an increasingly unhinged Rep. Adam Schiff maintains . In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of congressional Democrats, no evidence does not mean no evidence. In fact, it means the opposite.
Voters are unmoved. Ten times more Americans – 80 versus 8 percent – care about healthcare than about Russia according to a recent survey . When CNN pollsters asked a thousand people in mid-March to name the issues that matter most, not one mentioned Russia or the Mueller probe . If they didn't care when collusion was still an open question, they care even less now that the only issue is obstruction plus a phony constitutional crisis that desperate Democrats have conjured up out of thin air.
Trump the Chief Beneficiary
Besides Fox News – whose ratings have soared while Russia-obsessed CNN's have plummeted – the chief beneficiary is Trump. Post-Mueller, the man has the wind in his sails. Come 2020, Sen. Bernie Sanders could cut through his phony populism with ease. But if Jeff Bezos's Washington Post succeeds in tarring him with Russia the same way it tried to tar Trump, then the Democratic nominee will be a bland centrist whom the incumbent will happily bludgeon. Former Vice President Joe Biden – the John McCain-loving , speech-slurring , child-fondler who was for a wall along the Mexican border before he was against it – will end up as a bug splat on the Orange One's windshield.
Trump ready to take on challengers. (Caricature/DonkeyHotey via Flickr)
Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better. Sen. Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one moment that Trump is heading to jail , declares the next that voters don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the impeachment morass regardless.
Such "logic" is lost on voters, so it seems to be a safe bet that enough will stay home next Election Day to allow the rough beast to slouch towards Bethlehem yet again.
Assange Convicted in Eyes of Press
Then there's Julian Assange, currently serving a 50-week sentence in a supermax prison outside of London after being ejected from the Ecuadorian Embassy. By claiming that the WikiLeaks founder was "dissembling" by denying that Russia was the source of the mammoth Democratic National Committee leak in July 2016, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has effectively convicted him in the eyes of Congress and the press.
The New York Times thus reports that Mueller has " revealed " that Russian intelligence was the source while, in a venomous piece by Middlebury College professor Allison Stanger, The Washington Post declared that Assange "is neither whistleblower nor journalist," but someone who helped Russian intelligence interfere in "the American electoral process."
Schumer thus greeted Assange's April 11 arrest by tweeting his "hope [that] he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government," while, in a truly chilling statement , Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia declared that "[i]t will be really good to get him back on United States soil [so] we can get the facts and the truth from him."
Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.
-- Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 11, 2019
Assange is guiltier than ever. If Washington gets its hands on him, he'll no doubt be hauled before some sort of Star Chamber and then clapped in a dungeon somewhere until he confesses that Russian intelligence made him do it, even though a careful reading of the Mueller report strongly suggests the opposite. (See " The 'Guccifer 2.0' Gaps in Mueller's Full Report ," April 18.)
Assange languishing behind bars, war breaking out in Latin America or the Persian Gulf, Trump in the Oval Office for four years more – it's the worst of all possible worlds, and the Democratic Party's bizarre fixation with Vladimir Putin is what's pushing it.
Ultimately, Russia-gate is yet a variation on the tired old theme of American innocence. If something goes wrong, it can't be the fault of decent Americans who, as we all know, are too good for our deeply flawed world. Rather, it must be the fault of dastardly foreigners trying to hack our democracy. It's a deep-rooted form of xenophobia that has fueled everything from the criminalization of marijuana (smuggled in by evil Mexicans) to the 1950s Red Scare (a reaction to Communism smuggled in by evil Russians), and the war on terrorism (the work of evil Muslims). The idea that America may in anyway be responsible for its own fate is of course unthinkable.
But Russia-gate may be the greatest delusion of all. After decades of celebrating Donald Trump as the essence of American flash and hustle, the corporate media have decided that the only way he could have gotten into the White House is if Putin put him there. The upshot is a giant conspiracy to force Americans to turn their back on reality, an effort that can only end in disaster for all concerned, Democrats first and foremost.
Daniel Lazare is the author of "The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy" (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique and blogs about the Constitution and related matters at D aniellazare.com .
Tick Tock , May 15, 2019 at 11:30
Sorry Folks but both Mr Lazare's text and the majority of the comments here clearly illustrate that the major problem for America and its Citizens is that they are way too full of themselves and easily manipulated because of that. Seriously, the vast majority of the Worlds population Could Not Give a Rat's Ass about America except when they are being attacked either with Real Bombs or Economically.
No normal Human Being wants to be Israel's Stooge. You have to think you are are really important for someone in another Country to want to select your leaders. Oh yes that is what the US Deep State does and now it's been clearly exposed it does the same thing at home.. Of course if your motto is that "You are god's chosen people!", it could get you into trouble now and then with the rest of God's People. Like Bob Dylan wrote a few years ago, "I used to care!" Only a fool would care now.
Jeff Harrison , May 15, 2019 at 11:23
This is where we learn the importance of an objective press and one that can bring all the threads of a story together. And it's also most likely to be a disaster.
Yes, Russia kicked most US NGOs out of the country. With good reason. Most of them were deliberately undermining the host country (this is not limited to Russia, they do that in most of their host countries, especially those we want to mess with). The National Endowment for Democracy is a classic case in point. The counter point here isn't RT. It's a news outlet that has proven to be far more reliable than the US corporate media. Does Russia send NGOs around the world to infest other countries with their vision of government?
The US/EU fomented the coup in Ukraine that resulted in Crimea deciding they didn't want to be associated with Ukraine any longer. Did the US press tell the truth here? No. They made it sound as if Crimea was a part of Ukraine when, in fact, the Turkic Muslims of Crimea were never a part of the Christian Slavs of Ukraine. They also didn't explain the terms by which Khrushchev administratively slapped the two together in 1957 which give the Crimeans the ability to opt out.
It is exactly as Mr. Lazare says, Americans think that their country can do no wrong. We don't see the coups we foist on other countries. We don't see the lies and fake news we spread in other countries we wish to undermine. They don't see the consequences of our abuse of our economic power. The myopia is powerful in this one as my representatives tried to tell me that Venezuela was a prosperous and happy country before Chavez and that their current travails are as a result of the socialism and not two coup attempts and a long string of sanctions from the US. We are remarkably good at blaming the victim.
There's a good chance that this will rise up and bite us in the ass and the American people will have no idea why ..
AnneR , May 15, 2019 at 08:52
Mr Lazare, while I would certainly agree with much you have written, on one point at least I am much less certain: that most Americans care less about Russia than about health care.
While this might be true for the majority of the population who are in the lower middle, working classes and poor, I am much less certain about the "well" educated, comfortably off, well health insured, middling and upper bourgeoisie. The sort who, even when on Medicare, are on the upper rungs of it (paying extra for better and more expansive treatment; and I do mean Medicare here). The sort who frequently have been privately educated.
Several of my late husband's FB friends fall well into these categories and they really believe, wholeheartedly, the propaganda against Russia (and to some extent against China – Huawei, 5G, and so on), almost to the point of paranoia. The Demrat politicos and their corporate-capitalist-imperialist funders together with the despicable, groupthinking Orwellian media have done a real number on these people – usually the ones who *vote.*
These same people evince absolutely, and I mean absolutely, NO concern or interest in the constant war-making and warmongering, the illegal invasions, electoral meddling/coups/"regime" changes, destruction of peoples that this country (and its allies) engage in. Not happening here, therefore not anything to do with "us."
I know that my late husband would be utterly devastated knowing that some of his students, with whom he worked assiduously to develop real critical thinking (via much difficult reading in historiography, sociology and philosophy, discussion and writing), have fallen hook, line and sinker for the neoliberal groupthink supporting the corporate-capitalist-imperialist (and of course, orientalist) line. One can only imagine that they were already well primed for this mindset.
MattZ , May 15, 2019 at 11:43
Anne -- your post resonates deeply with me. I would guess you and I are of similar ages and have similar friends and acquaintances. We certainly share the exact same experiences with these people. They are proud 'liberals' (lately donning the 'progressive' robe with equal exuberance). None are members of the elite one-percenters, but all belong to what Nader refers to as the 'contented class', that 9% buffer zone between the elite and the increasingly miserable lower 90%-ers.
Most are Democrats who embrace the 'neoliberal groupthink' you referred to. There was a time I believed one of the conclusions of a famous study on authoritarian personalities that claimed the vast majority of authoritarians (active and passive) were Republicans. Just as the Democratic Party has morphed into the 80's Republican Party, so too have these liberals. Their cognitive dissonance is more powerful than any I have encountered in my lifetime. Their core belief system now includes incrementalism, lesser-evilism and an overwhelming sense of goodness that at least they are 'doing something positive' by supporting all Democrats at all costs.
Appallingly, their new heroes are historically-proven liars, psychopaths and Deep State organizations like the CIA and FBI. Their Trump Derangement Syndrome has destroyed all ability to think critically or accept transparent and obvious truths. They accept no criticism of their actions and attack those who question them. To them, the 'end' of removing Trump justifies any evil.
Gaia help us all.
Skip Scott , May 15, 2019 at 08:04
The root of the Democrats problem is they feed from the same trough as the GOP. They can't do anything substantial about health care or the declining middle class because they'd piss off their donors. Since they can't stand for "the working man" any longer, they are trying to cobble together "Identity Politics" and "Political Correctness" to eke out a majority. Good luck with that! They can give us non gender specific restrooms with our Forever War! Why aren't we feeling the love?
I think the time has never been more ripe for a serious third party challenge than 2020.
Realist , May 15, 2019 at 10:42
Perfect thumbnail obituary for the Democratic Party, Skip. It got hijacked by corporatists who saw an opportunity to push the GOP agenda from both directions. Maybe that's what Hillary meant by "stronger together."
Herrman , May 15, 2019 at 07:56
If you want to be entertained and titillated turn on the national evening news shows. The 2020 election circus has already begun. Don't watch that, switch channels and watch the obstruction of justice infotainment. Want news, read between the lines of the major newspapers. Go to PBS to be rescued, good luck.
Has it always been thus. Maybe, but it's a much better show today.
Shock and awe. Can't wait for the next one.
O Society , May 15, 2019 at 04:52
If I could figure out long ago Russia-gate was going to lead to Trump's reelection (see above link), you would think Brennan/ Clinton/ Pelosi could figure it out too. Which begs the questions:
Is Trump good for business for the Democratic party financial patrons? Do they really want him impeached? Did the Pied Piper strategy ever end? Does Bernie Sanders scare them so much they'd rather promote Trump than have Sanders in the Oval Office?
Realist , May 15, 2019 at 10:35
Your last explanation is the one that Jimmy Dore seems to favor. The party string pullers are obviously desperate when they back one near-octogenarian (Crazy Joe Biden) for the nomination against another near-octogenarian (Sanders). Counter move by the GOPers may be to run Tricky Dick Nixon's head-in-a-bottle for the office, like in Futurama.
Realist , May 15, 2019 at 02:05
Wow, gotta hand it to McConnell. That man can shamelessly pack multiple whoppers into every single sentence uttered in his public speaking. Quite a tour de force of pure undiluted bullshit by the turtle. With his rhetorical skills to deliver talking points at a newly realised zenith, there's sure to be a job for him on Madison Avenue when he's finally kicked to the curb as happens to every politician when a better snake oil salesman inevitably comes along.
John Sanguinetti , May 15, 2019 at 00:05
I don't get why, supposedly intelligent, informed people are wondering why Russia is being blamed for so much. Let me remind you that the extremely powerful Israel Lobby is VERY BUSY supporting the agenda of the right wing Likud government in Israel.
One of the goals of Likud is the Zionist agenda that includes Greater Israel which requires Israel to acquire more water and land in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, Iran is a very strong supporter of the Palestinians and Syrian President Assad and Iraqi independence from US domination.
Russia, with it's very effective support for Assad and collaboration with Iran is blocking progress on the Zionist agenda. So, putting pressure on Russia is a way of trying to force them to back off from their support for Syria and Iran or at least to scare them with the power of our military and a crazy unpredictable leader who might do anything. Israel has besides it's VERY STRONG and active lobbies in the US and UK a large and VERY Active 5th column that spends a LOT of money and effort influencing the people who run our government.
CitizenOne , May 14, 2019 at 23:43
I believe it but with some editing of the authors original four things. I have deleted the case against Assange as a sideshow that does nor resonate with Americans any more than the nightly rumor mill about celebrities. Here goes.
Americans used to think that Russia-gate was about a plot to hack the 2016 election. They were wrong. Russia-gate is really about an immense conspiracy to do four things:
No. 1: Ratchet up tensions with Russia to ever more dangerous levels;
No. 2: Show that Democrats are even more useless than people imagined;
No. 3: Win the 2020 elections and reelect Trump and preserve the republican majority in the Senate and win back the democrat controlled House
No. 4: Wage wars in oil rich nations being Iran and Venezuela to fulfill the agenda of the energy companies via military action.
While McConnell rails against Obama for his weaknesses we have the historical record that Obama declared Venezuela as a national security threat, levied massive sanctions against Russia for their presumed invasion of Ukraine, launched a war against the Syrian government, preserved and supported our wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
We see today that Chuck Schumer is still committed to the theory that Russia is the single reason that the democrats lost the last election which is absurd and is rejected by not only a significant number of liberal journalists but also by a majority of Americans. Why do the democrats continue to promote conspiracy theories that the majority of Americans reject as nonsense?
The republicans have the democrats over a barrel and will push it over and watch the democrats wallow in the mud with much amusement.
This could not have have happened to the democrats without a complete lack of foresight or even a slightest attempt to rely on the truth to guide them.
From day one after the election, the democrats swallowed the bait hook line and sinker and now the hook is buried deep in their gullets and they still insist that they are free swimming fish on a mission to prove Russia was responsible for the last election. With every gulp they swallow the hook deeper apparently unaware that they are about to be reeled in and captured by their unfounded beliefs that the bait is is a real meal they can sustain themselves on. Just like a fooled fish they are on the hook.
The announcement that the AG is launching an investigation led by republicans to investigate the Russia Gate investigation will most certainly tarnish democrats and stain their efforts that will be seen as even more dull as the tarnish they try to put on Trump. Even uninformed citizens will ask what is up with the democrats who are trying to bring down Trump even though their reliable news sources tell them that Russia Gate is all a lie.
Meanwhile the democrats who have declared come up not only short on ideas but appear to be suicidal.
Elisabeth Warren has declared war on monopolies in an era where unlimited spending by corporations is legally protected as free speech. How can she hope to win by pledging to breakup monopolies that are well equipped to outspend her in their bid for survival?
The democrats have failed to do the math and their strategies for appealing to the masses will be shot down by the right wing controlled "free press". It is not a liberal press. It is the enemy of liberals controlled by wealthy liberal hating, libertarian loving billionaires. Public vows by democrats who pledge to destroy it will be met with the full force of their arsenal which includes complete control over the microphone that steers debate and is the chief influence of elections. As Mark Twain put it, " It is unwise to wage a war of words against men who buy ink by the barrel".
Howard Dean met his end when the major media outlets conspired to elevate "The Dean Scream" to levels questioning his sanity. The nearly constant barrage of over 4,000 replays of the Dean Scream leading up to the democratic primaries effectively put an end to his bid for nomination.
But why did all of the the major media outlets conspire to conduct a character assassination of the Howard Dean movement? Just two weeks before the Dean Scream was endlessly broadcasted by the media with news commentators chiming in that he was likely an insane man who must be exposed and stopped in his tracks he made a fatal flaw. He made a campaign speech where he said that if he was elected he would impose regulations on the media. Boom Boom out went the lights.
How can any democrat win when they oppose corporations that include the media corporations in America? How can Elisabeth Warren wither the name calling that she will suffer as Trump claims she has a Pocahontas syndrome while also alienating the largest campaign contributors with her pledge to destroy them? How will her insistence that she has Indian blood possibly win her fans when the majority of Americans will mock her. They have been honed on the strop of right wing money into believing that everything they hear and see is factual even though it is not factual or real. Such is the suicidal gamble of the soon to be defeated democratic party.
Why they continue to go down the path toward blind alleys where they will be trapped and defeated baffles me.
geeyp , May 15, 2019 at 11:32
Why, on this good earth, does anyone pay any attention to Schumer and Schiff and McConnell? Shills, do nothing crackpots and traitors to this nation; when you see that's what they are, you have to ignore them.
jmg , May 14, 2019 at 19:57
Daniel Lazare: "( ) it must be the fault of dastardly foreigners trying to hack our democracy. It's a deep-rooted form of xenophobia that has fueled everything ( ) The idea that America may in anyway be responsible for its own fate is of course unthinkable."
Yes, that's the way it is. About WikiLeaks, as they have repeated many times:
"Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims 'bullshit', adding: 'They are absolutely making it up.'
"'I know who leaked them,' Murray said. 'I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.'"
-- The Guardian, 2016-12-10
May 04, 2019 | angrybearblog.com
likbez, May 4, 2019 8:24 pmlikbez , May 4, 2019 10:11 pm
The F.B.I. surveillance didn't come out until after the election. Therefore it couldn't impact the election. McConnell threatened to shriek "partisan politics!" if Obama said anything publicly about the Russian issue. Obama didn't. Claims of partisan behavior? Bullshit.
What about proven attempts of entrapments and inserting spies into Trump campaign?
Mifsud and Halper's stories come to mind (Halper's story has an interesting "seduction" subplot with undercover FBI informant Azra Turk). FBI and Justice Department brass acted as dirty mafia style politicians. McCabe and Brennan are two shining examples here. Probably guided personally by Obama, who being grown in a family of CIA operatives probably know this color revolutions "kitchen" all too well.
BTW Hillary did destroy evidence from her "bathroom server" while under subpoena.
Looks like Robert Mueller was a dirty cop hired to confirm fairy tales of Russian collusion peddled by a Clinton wing of Dems (DemoRats) sing Trump. And he enjoyed the full support of several intelligence agencies brass (especially FBI brass; initially Stzkok was one of his investigators)
Before that Mueller was in charge of 9/11 and Anthrax scare investigations. So he is a card caring member of the neoliberal elite which converted the USA into what can be called the "National Security State"
Which looks like classic Mussolini Italy with two guiding principles of jurisprudence applied to political enemies:
(1) To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law (originated in 1933) .
(2) Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime (that actually comes from Stalinism period of the USSR, but the spirit is the same) .
It was actually Barr who saved Trump from obstruction of justice charge. He based his defense on the interpretation of the statuses the following (actually very elegant) way:
In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless investigation
Of course, that upset DemoRats who want President Pence to speed up the destruction of the USA and adding a couple of new wars to list the USA is involved.
Mueller was extremely sloppy and one-sided in writing his final report. Which is given taking into account his real task: to sink Trump. As Nunes aptly observed about his treatment of Mifsud as a Russian agent :
"If he is, in fact, a Russian agent, it would be one of the biggest intelligence scandals for not only the United States, but also our allies like the Italians and the Brits and others. Because if Mifsud is a Russian agent, he would know all kinds of our intelligence agents throughout the globe
Yes, of course, in the current neo-McCarthyism atmosphere merely passing the salt to a Russian guest at a dinner party makes you "an unregistered foreign agent" of Russia bent on implementing Putin's evil plans and colliding with Russian government ;-).
It looks like you are unable/unwilling to understand the logic behind my post. With all due respect, the situation is very dangerous -- when the neoliberal elite relies on lies almost exclusively as a matter of policy (look at Kamala Harris questioning Barr -- she is not stupid, she is an evil, almost taken from Orwell 1984, character), IMHO the neoliberal society is doomed. Sooner or later.
Currently, the USA squabble over Parteigenosse Mueller Final Report between two factions of neoliberal elite makes the USA a joke in the eyes of the whole world and Democrats look like Italian Fascists in 30th: a party hell-bent of dominance which does not care about laws or legitimacy one bit and can use entrapment and other dirty methods to achieve its goals.
Hopefully, a more sound part of the USA elite, which Barr represents, will put some sand into those wheels. His decision to investigate the origin of Russiagate produced almost a heart attack for Pelosi. And the fact that he decided to skip his auto-da-fé at the House adds insult to injury. Poor Pelosi almost lost her mind.
Neoliberals and neoconservatives joined ranks behind Russiagate and continue to push it because otherwise they need to be held accountable for all the related neoliberal disasters in the USA since 1980th including sliding standard of living, disappearance of "good" jobs, sky-high cost of university education and medical insurance, and the last but not least, Hillary fiasco.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton in foreign policy and used disillusionment of working close with neoliberal Democratic Party to his advantage promising jobs, end of outsourcing, end of uncontrolled immigration, and increased standard of living. He betrayed all those promises, but, still, that's why he won.
And that why the neoliberal establishment must present his election as de facto illegitimate, because otherwise they would be forced to admit that the bipartisan consensus around both financialization driven economics (casino capitalism) and imperial, war on terror based interventionism that are the foundation of the USA neoliberal elite politics since Clinton has been a disaster for most ordinary Americans -- of all political persuasions.
Out of democratic challengers IMHO only Tulsi Gabbard can probably attract a sizable faction of former Trump supporters and she is the most reviled, ignored, and slandered by DNC liberals and neocons alike candidate.
The truth is that the color revolution against Donald Trump (a soft coup if you wish) failed. Now he badly needs to win in 2020 to avoid an indictment in NY State when he leaves the Presidency. It is just a matter of survival for him.
Neoliberal Democrats will help him by putting their weakest pro-war candidate like the aged, apparently slightly demented neocon Joe Biden. With his rabid neoliberal past, neocon foreign policy past, Ukrainian skeletons in the closet and probably participation in the Obama administration dirty and criminal attempt to derail Trump using intelligence agencies as the leverage.
Just like is the case with Boeing the situation for neoliberal democrats does not look promising. The world is starting to crash all around them.
May 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) held Attorney General William Barr in contempt on Wednesday for failing to turn over the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence - yet not a single Democrat in Congress has elected to look at the 99.9% unredacted 'volume 2' section of the Mueller's findings provided to Congress by the DOJ, which specifically covers the obstruction portion of Mueller's investigation (Section "A" of the report covering alleged conspiracy with Russia was offered 98.5% unredacted).
On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters " Not a single Democrat has even taken the time to go and look at it ," adding " They're asking for information they know they can't have. The attorney general is actually upholding the law," referring to a recent ruling by a federal judge which requires that Barr redact grand jury material.
May 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told ABC' s 'This Week' that Mueller is ready to testify before Congress .
"The American people have a right to hear what the man who did the investigation has to say and we now know we certainly can't rely on the attorney general who misrepresented his conclusions," sais Schiff. " So he is going to testify. "
Rand Paul calls bullshit on the whole thing
Responding later on the show to ABC 's George Stephanopoulos, Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that all of the Trump investigations have all been " politically motivated. "
"One of the things that Adam Schiff and the other partisans don't understand is that if you're accused of a crime by a grand jury and they don't indict you, the prosecutor doesn't go all over town saying we thought he did this, we thought he did this, this is all the evidence," said Rand, adding that "most Americans would disagree" with federal prosecutors who claim that President Trump would be prosecuted if he weren't in office.
" People are horrified by the idea that you could put someone in jail for obstructing justice on something where you didn't commit the crime ," said Paul.
Real Estate Guru , 34 minutes ago linkJBLight , 28 minutes ago link
ROGER STONE IS KICKING MUELLER'S *** RIGHT NOW!! THIS IS BRILLIANT!! in 2 COURT CASES...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h1jxM3_svYTeamtc321 , 22 minutes ago link
They're getting hit from all sides. Obama White House tracking the FOIA requests? As mentioned in the report, Obama was the gatekeeper for the Dark State on all of this and more.Equinox7 , 15 minutes ago link
Opening Discovery is going to be a Bitch for the Mueller Kracken Clan Cover up.........
Ouch.................. Roger is going in Swinging hard...........
Nice..................JBLight , 51 minutes ago link
I believe Roger Stone was a trick laid out to bring out the truth of full disclosure from Mueller. Through open discovery, everything will have to be brought out. Roger Stone is becoming the nightmare that the Democrats and Mueller will beg to go away. Mueller is trapped, and he can't drop the Roger Stone charges now. The hoax is going to be exposed.
The Democrats mascot is a donkey, i.e. a jackass. The Democratic Party is full of dumb jackasses, literally.JBLight , 1 hour ago link
A pic of Comey on CNN the other day:
This guy has not slept in days. How does it feel to be running scared? To try with all your might to get in front of the truth bombs that are about to drop? That's what all of these assholes are doing, damage control.Teamtc321 , 57 minutes ago link
They're dead in the water, the dark ones.
Roger Stone is fighting back now and has demanded that the DOJ present evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC.
Discovery is a beautiful thing.Teamtc321 , 40 minutes ago link
I have been trying to locate why Mike Flynn has still not been sentenced for his entrapment, phony charge of a process crime............
Very interesting.............JBLight , 50 minutes ago link
I sure hope Mike Flynn is fully exonerated, after listening to the Dan Bongino Podcast on what they did to entrap Mr. Flynn, my blood has boiled ever since.
These are some slimy, crooked POS.
# 865 at about 27 minutes, is very interesting to say the least.
Bongino's overall clip was very worth the listen also imo if you haven't caught it.
Ep. 865 Mike Flynn Was Set Up! The Dan Bongino Show 12/5/2018.
From < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbQXnTOSg9E&t=1890sTeamtc321 , 39 minutes ago link
His entrapment will be fully known. He's a good man and that pendulum of karma is already knocking these assholes' heads off.
I sure hope so and completely agree, Mr. Flynn is a good man.
Apr 01, 2023 | ahtribune.com
Russiagate has three purposes.
- One is to prevent President Trump from endangering the vast budget and power of the military/security complex by normalizing relations with Russia.
- Another, in the words of James Howard Kunstler, is "to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign," by focusing all public and political attention on a hoax distraction.
- The third is to obstruct Trump's campaign and distract him from his agenda when he won the election.
Despite the inability of Mueller to find any evidence that Trump or Trump officials colluded with Russia to steal the US presidential election, and the inability of Mueller to find evidence with which to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, Russiagate has achieved all of its purposes.
Trump has been locked into a hostile relationship with Russia. Neoconservatives have succeeded in worsening this hostile relationship by manipulating Trump into a blatant criminal attempt to overthrow in broad daylight the Venezuelan government.
Hillary's criminal conduct and the criminal conduct of the CIA, FBI, and Obama Justice (sic) Department that resulted in a variety of felonies, including the FBI obtaining spy warrants for partisan political purposes on false pretexts from the FISA court, were swept out of sight by the Russiagate hoax.
The Mueller report was written in such a way that despite the absence of any evidence supporting any indictment of Trump, the report refused to clear Trump of obstruction and passed the buck to the Attorney General. In other words, Mueller in the absence of any evidence kept the controversy going by setting up Attorney General Barr for cover-up charges.
It is evidence of Mueller's corruption that he does not explain just how it is possible for Trump to possibly have obstructed justice when Mueller states in his report that the crime he was empowered to investigate could not be found. How does one obstruct the investigation of a crime that did not occur?
As Kunstler puts it, "The Special Prosecutor's main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to accept and make clear is that a prosecutor's failure to reach a conclusion is exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of Mr. Mueller's duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in his report -- and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct" on Mueller's part.
But this is not the only dishonesty in Mueller's report. Although Mueller's report clearly obliterates the Russiagate conspiracy theory peddled by the military/security complex, the Democrats, and the presstitutes, Mueller's report takes for granted that Russia interfered in the election but not in collusion with Trump or Trump officials. Mueller states this interference as if it were a fact without providing one drop of evidence. Indeed, nowhere in the report, or anywhere else, is there any evidence of Russian interference.
Mueller simply takes Russian interference for granted as if endless repeating by a bunch of presstitutes makes it so. For example, the Mueller report says that the Russians hacked the DNC emails, a claim for which no evidence exists. Moreover, it is a claim that is contradicted by the known evidence. William Binney and other experts have demonstrated that the DNC emails were, according to their time stamps, downloaded much more quickly than is possible over the Internet. This fact has been carefully ignored by Mueller, the Democrats and the presstitutes.
One reason for ignoring this undisputed fact is that they all want to get Julian Assange, and the public case concocted against Assange is that Assange is in cahoots with the Russians who allegedly gave him the hacked emails. As there is no evidence that Russia hacked the emails and as Assange has said Russia is not the source, what is Mueller's evidence? Apparently, Mueller's evidence is his own political indictment of Russian individuals who Mueller alleged hacked the DNC computers. This false indictment for which there is no evidence was designed by Mueller to poison the Helsinki meeting between Trump and Putin and announced on the eve of the meeting.
Indictments do not require evidence, and Mueller had none. Moreover, Mueller could not possibly know the identities of the Russian intelligence agents who allegedly did the hacking. This was of no concern to Mueller. He knew he needed no evidence, because he knew there would be no trial. The indictment was political propaganda, not real.
The myth of Russian interference is so well established that even Glenn Greenwald in his otherwise careful and correct exposition of the Russiagate hoax buys into Russian interference as if it were a fact. Indeed, many if not most of Trump's supporters are ready to blame Russia for trying, but failing, to ensnare their man Trump.
The falsity of Russiagate and the political purposes of the hoax are completely obvious, but even Trump supporters tip their hats to the falsehood of Russian interference so that they do not look guilty of excessive support for Trump. In other words, Russiagate has succeeded in constraining how far Trump's supporters can go in defending him, especially if he has any remaining intent to reduce tensions with Russia.
Russiagate has succeeded in criminalizing in the American mind any contact with Russia. Thus has the military/security complex guaranteed that its budget and power will not be threatened by any move toward peace between nuclear powers.
The Democratic Party and the presstitutes cannot be bothered by facts. They are committed to getting Trump regardless of the facts. And so is Mueller, and Brennan, and Comey, and a slew of other corrupt public officials.
A good example of journalistic misconduct is James Risen writing in Glenn Greenwald's Intercept of all places, "WILLIAM BARR MISLED EVERYONE ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. NOW DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION." Quoting the same posse of "hang Trump high" Democrats, Risen, without questioning their disproven lies, lets the Democrats build a case that Mueller's report proves Trump's guilt. Then Risen himself misrepresents the report in support of the Democrats. He says there is a huge difference between Barr's memo on the report and the report itself as if Barr would misrepresent a report that he is about to release.
Length is the only difference between the memo and the report. This doesn't stop Risen from writing: "In fact, the Mueller report makes it clear that a key reason Mueller did not seek to prosecute Trump for obstruction was a longstanding Justice Department legal opinion saying that the Justice Department can't indict a sitting president." This is something Mueller threw in after saying he didn't have the evidence to indict Trump. It is yet another reason for not indicting, not the reason. Risen then backs up his misreport with that of a partisan Democrat, Renato Mariotti who claims that Mueller could have indicted Trump except it is against US Justice Department policy. Again, there is no explanation from Risen, Mariotti, or anyone else how Mueller could have indicted Trump for obstructing what Mueller concludes was a crime that did not happen.
Just as Mueller indicted Russian intelligence agents without evidence, he could have indicted Trump without evidence, but a case against a president that is without evidence is not one a prosecutor wants to take to court as it is obviously an act of sedition.
That the Democrats and the presstitutes want Trump indicted for obstructing a crime that did not occur shows how insane they have been driven by their hatred of Trump. What is operating in the Democratic Party and in the American media is insanity and hatred. Nothing else.
Risen also alleges that the unproven Russian hacks were passed over by Barr in his memo on the report. Not only is this incorrect, but also Risen apparently has forgot that the investigation was about Trump's collusion with Russia to do something illegal and the investigation found that no such thing occurred. Risen, like the rest of the presstitutes and even Greenwald himself, takes for granted that the unproven Russian hacks happened. Again we see that the longer a lie is repeated the more it becomes true. Not even Greenwald can detect that he has been bamboozled.
At one time James Risen was an honest reporter. He won a Pulitzer prize, and he was threatened with prison by the Department of Justice when he refused to reveal his source for his reporting on illegal actions of the CIA. But Risen discovered that in the new world of journalism, telling the truth is punished while lying is rewarded. Risen, like all the others, decided that his income was more important than the truth.
Journalists who lie for the Establishment have no need of the First Amendment. Perhaps this is why they have no concern that Washington's attack on Julian Assange will destroy the First Amendment. They are helping Washington destroy Assange so that their self-esteem will no longer be threatened by the fact that there is a real journalist out there doing real journalism. Mueller ReportMORE...
- Tips for a Post-Mueller Media from Nine Russiagate Skeptics
- Mueller, Trump and Governance
- Muellergate and the Discreet Lies of the Bourgeoisie
- Three Lessons from the 'Failed' Mueller Inquiry
Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.
May 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
According to newly unearthed memos which were retroactively classified by the DOJ, a high-ranking government official who met with Christopher Steele in October 2016 determined that information in the Trump-Russia dossier was inaccurate , and likely leaked to the media, according to The Hill 's John Solomon.
Ten days before the FBI used the now-discredited dossier to apply for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, Steele met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec, who took handwritten notes of the encounter.
Steele told Kavalec that Russia had a "technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election," which recruited US emigres to "do hacking and recruiting. Steele added that "Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian consulate in Miami."
Except that's a lie - as Kavalec debunked the assertion in a bracketed comment: " It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami. "
Kavalec, two days later and well before the FISA warrant was issued, forwarded her typed summary to other government officials. The State Department has redacted the names and agencies of everyone she alerted.
But it is almost certain the FBI knew of Steele's contact with State and his partisan motive . That's because former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland says she instructed her staff to send the information they got from Steele to the bureau immediately and to cease contact with the informer because "this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of -- not the business of the State Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act." - The Hill
What makes this particularly damning is that the FBI swore on October 21, 2016 to the FISA judges that Steele's "reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," and that the FBI deemed him to be "reliable" and was "unaware of any derogatory information pertaining" to the former British spy who was working for Fusion GPS - the firm paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to come up with dirt on Donald Trump.
As we noted yesterday based on an earlier Hill report on the Kavalec-Steele notes, Steele was flagged for admitting that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline, as his client was "keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8."
Notes and testimony from senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr make clear Steele admitted early on that he was "desperate" to get Trump defeated in the election, was working in some capacity for the GOP candidate's opponent, and considered his intelligence raw and untested. Ohr testified that he alerted FBI and other senior Justice officials to these concerns in August 2016. - The Hill
Kavalec also flagged several places in her notes in which she suspected that Steele might be leaking information to the press . "June -- reporting started," she wrote. "NYT and WP have," she added, in an apparent reference to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
She then quoted Steele as indicating that he was "managing" four priorities -- "Client needs, FBI, WashPo/NYT, source protection," - a clear indication that media outreach was part of his job.
Those same notes suggest Steele spun some wild theories to State, including one that the Russians had a "plant in DNC" and had assembled an "HRC dossier," apparent references to the Democratic National Committee and Clinton.
She expounded in her typed memo. "The Russians have succeeded in placing an agent inside the DNC," she quoted Steele as saying.
Steele offered Kavalec other wild information that easily could have been debunked before the FISA application -- and eventually was, in many cases, after the media reported the allegations -- including that:
- Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Russians;
- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort owed the Russians $100 million and was the "go-between" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Trump;
- Trump adviser Carter Page met with a senior Russian businessman tied to Putin;
- The Russians secretly communicated with Trump through a computer system. - The Hill
Those rumors were debunked by Special counsel Robert Mueller's April report, despite barely mentioning Steele and a passing reference to his infamous dossier being "unverified."
Except that the FBI's FISA request from October 2016 - which relied almost entirely on Steele's work - was marked "verified application" prior to the FBI's submission to the court.
Eventually, Steele was fired to the FBI for leaking to the media and then lying about it - however that happend after the FISA warrant was approved - and according to The Hill , the court was not notified about it until a few months later, well after the election.
In short, the FBI undoubtedly lied to their teeth to the FISA court in order to obtain a warrant to surveil Carter Page and the Trump campaign.
San Pedro , 28 minutes ago linkbooboo , 28 minutes ago link
The FBI..the enforcer of the "Just Us" system. "Justice" is dead thanks to the ooobama.alter , 29 minutes ago link
The Woods Procedure will reveal how it was vetted, who signed off on the verification and how it moved up the chain. Declassify it all Mr. Trump.
" This is no "nothingburger," and any official, pundit or Facebook friend who says otherwise is spinning, in denial, not too bright, or James Comey. There has to be an independent investigation of the conduct of the FBI now. Every American should support that.Dumpster Elite , 31 minutes ago link
The FBI tried their best to illegally bring down the US President....if they are not stopped, what else will they do?brokebackbuck , 31 minutes ago link
The FBI..this Country's Secret Police, Gestapo, KGB...whatever you prefer. The Deep State enforcement arm. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fool.ebworthen , 33 minutes ago link
The USA is such a shitshow right now. A month ago hillary suggested that china hack trumps tax returns, then this week they leaked. Surprise? russia, china; america is its own worst enemy. watch.alter , 34 minutes ago link
Obama and the Clinton's behind the Witch Hunt, guaranteed.
Not to mention the deep state members of K Street and the M.I.C.Equinox7 , 35 minutes ago link
The FBI is anti-American and completely corrupt, the entire agency should be disbanded. Nobody will ever trust it again. It is just another corrupt arm of the DNC.Anunnaki , 36 minutes ago link
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been awake to the truth and not listening to the Deep State propaganda on the fake news media outlets.
Yes, what was described above is definitely treason. The real question is not Did it happen , but instead, At who's direction did all of this conspire and occur ?
In my opinion, this goes all the way to the top in the Obama regime. The collusion angle in all of this I believe occurred between the 5 Eyes Network of countries controlled by the Deep State. So I believe foreign allies where attempting to interfere in US elections.Equinox7 , 27 minutes ago link
Another smoking gun. The FBI refused to pay Steele bc the stuff he was giving them was unsubstantiated garbage.brokebackbuck , 21 minutes ago link
It is so unsubstantiated , that Comey and the FBI decided to use the garbage to lie to a FISA judge in the FISA court to get a warrant to spy on citizen and candidate Trump. Then the spying was being reported back to Obama in daily FBI briefings about his political adversary. I find it doubtful that Comey and company didn't pay Steele under the table for lies, knowing the whole time Steele was lying.sanctificado , 45 minutes ago link
of course steele got paid, because they needed to make sure nelly got paidyatri99 , 45 minutes ago link
"I've talked to the members of the Israeli government at the highest levels. I know who they want elected here. It's not Hillary Clinton." – Former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani
The Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Israhell.
But NO ONE will investigate that.
M.A.G.A. is out
K.A.K.A. is in (Keep America Kabalah Again)
http://cufpa.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/trumps-jewish-agenda/Hadenough1000 , 49 minutes ago link
"Ten days before the FBI used the now-discredited dossier to apply for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, Steele met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec, who took handwritten notes of the encounter." Kavalec worked under Nuland, and Nuland worked under John Kerry, who has been suspiciously below the radar in all this. I'd like to see his testimony before congress.fersur , 52 minutes ago link
Comey sounds exactly like avenatti and cohen
I cant wait for the no knock raid at this illegal leakers house
Steele may be still collecting payments, he may have been involved with writing 'The Mueller Report' !
Just interesting gossip from an attractively rabbit-hole, soon we will know more none-the-less !
Apr 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
loveyajimbo , 3 hours ago link
Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper for their obvious major felonies.
And YES... he could have.
May 08, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Ilargi: Mueller Never Wanted The Truth
by Tyler Durden Tue, 05/07/2019 - 14:40 16 SHARES Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,
ran an article about omissions from the Mueller report and/or investigation. It's instructive, but there is more. First, some bits from that article: Major Mueller Report Omissions Suggest Incompetence Or A Coverup
Robert Mueller's 448-page "Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" contains at least two major omissions which suggest that the special counsel and his entire team of world-class Democrat attorneys are either utterly incompetent, or purposefully concealing major crimes committed against the Trump campaign and the American people.
First, according to The Federalist's Margot Cleveland (a former law clerk of nearly 25 years and instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame) – the Mueller report fails to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation, and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI.
"The Steele dossier, which consisted of a series of memorandum authored by the former MI6 spy, detailed intel purportedly provided by a variety of Vladimir Putin-connected sources. For instance, Steele identified Source A as "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure" who "confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."
Other supposed sources identified in the dossier included: Source B, identified as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin"; Source C, a "Senior Russian Financial Officer"; and Source G, "a Senior Kremlin Official." -The Federalist
As Cleveland posits: "Given Mueller's conclusion that no one connected to the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election, one of those two scenarios must be true -- either Russia fed Steele disinformation or Steele lied to the FBI about his Russian sources."
Mueller identified only two principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election: "First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents."
Surely, a plot by Kremlin-connected individuals to feed a known FBI source -- Steele had helped the FBI uncover an international soccer bribery scandal -- false claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia would qualify as a "principal way" in which Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
[..] the only lawmaker to even mention this possibility has been Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who raised the issue with Attorney General William Barr last week: "My question," said Grassley, "Mueller spent over two years and 30 million dollars investigating Russia interference in the election. In order for a full accounting of Russia interference attempts, shouldn't the special counsel have considered whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation and interfere campaign?" [..] Barr said that he has assembled a DOJ team to examine Mueller's investigation, findings, and whether the spying conducted by the FBI against the Trump campaign in 2016 was improper.
Mueller's second major oversight – which we have touched on repeatedly – is the special counsel's portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.
Weeks after returning from Moscow, Mifsud – a self-described Clinton Foundation member – 'seeded' the rumor that Russia had 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016, according to the Mueller report.
As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) noted on Fox News on Sunday, "how is it that we spend 30-plus-million dollars on this, as taxpayers and they can't even tell us who Joseph Mifsud is?" " this is important, because, in the Mueller dossier, they use a fake news story to describe Mifsud. In one of those stories, they cherry- pick it," Nunes added.
[..] As conservative commentator and former US Secret Service agent Dan Bongino notes of Mifsud, "either we have a Russian asset who's infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up George Papadopoulos."
This poses questions about Mueller, Mifsud and Steele and many other people and organizations involved, but the central question remains unaddressed: did Russia truly meddle and interfere in the 2016 election?
We don't know, we have only Mueller's word for that, and he's ostensibly based it on reports from US intelligence, which has very obvious reasons to smear Russia. That Mifsud is presented as a Russian agent, with all the doubts about that which we have seen presented, doesn't help this point.
That Steele hadn't visited Russia since 1993 when he complied his dossier is not helpful either. His information could have originated with "the Russians", or with US intelligence, and he would never have been the wiser. That is, even IF he was a straight shooter. What are the odss of that?
And of course the strongest doubts about Russian meddling and interference, along with offers of evidence to underline and reinforce these doubts, have been offered by Julian Assange and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group.
But as I've repeatedly said before, after Mueller had to let go of the "Russia collusion with the Trump campaign" accusation, he was free to let the "Russian meddling aided and abetted by Julian Assange" narrative stand, because he didn't have to provide proof for that, as long as he didn't communicate with either the Russians (easy), the VIPS (whom he stonewalled) or Assange (who's been completely silenced).
So we have -at least- 4 major omissions in the Mueller investigation and report:
1) the Mueller report failed to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation (and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI).
2) Mueller's portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.
3) Mueller declined to talk to the VIPS, who offered evidence that the DNC servers were not hacked but content was copied onto a disk at the server's location
4) Mueller refused to hear Julian Assange, who offered evidence that it was not the Russians that had provided WikiLeaks with the emails.
Mueller was supposedly trying to find the truth about Trump's ties to Russia/Putin, and he refused to see and hear evidence from two organizations, WikiLeaks and the VIPS, which he absolutely certainly knew could potentially have provided things he did not know. Why did he do that? There's only one possible answer: he didn't want to know.
Why not? Because he feared he would have had to abandon the "Russian meddling and interference" narrative as well. If, as both WikiLeaks and the VIPS insisted, the emails didn't come from "the Russians", all that would have been left is an opaque story about "Russians" buying $100,000 in Facebook ads. And that, too, is awfully shaky.
That's an amount Jared Kushner acknowledged he spent every few hours on such ads during the – multi-billion-dollar – campaign. Moreover, many of these ads were allegedly posted AFTER the elections. And we don't even know it was Russians who purchased the ads, that's just another story coming from US intelligence.
It is not so hard, guys. "Omissions" or "oversight" is one way to put it, but there are others. Assange could have cleared himself of any claims of involvement in meddling and perhaps proven Guccifer 2.0 was not "Russian". His discussions with the DOJ, preparations for which were in an advanced stage of development, were killed in 2017 by then-FBI head James Comey and Rep. Mark Warner.
Mueller never wanted the truth, he wanted to preserve a narrative. The VIPS, too, threatened that narrative by offering physical evidence that nobody hacked the emails. Mueller never reached out. Mueller, the former FBI chief, who must know who these men and women are. Here's a list, in case you were wondering:
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
- William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
- Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
- Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
- James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
- Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
- Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
- John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
- Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
- Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
- Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
- David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
- Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
- Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
- Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
- Peter Van Buren,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
- Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
And then you lead a Special Counsel investigation, you spend 2 years and $30 million, you get offered evidence in what you're investigating, and you just ignore these people?
And there are still people who want to believe that Robert Swan Mueller III is a straight shooter? They must not want to know the truth, either, then.
Here's wondering if Bill Barr does, who's going to investigate the Mueller investigation. Does he want the truth, or is he just the next in line to push the narrative?
Is there anyone in power left in America who has any courage at all to expose this B-rated theater?
Tulsi Gabbard has been reviled for talking to Assad. Why not talk to Assange as well, Tulsi? How about Rand Paul? We know he wanted to talk to Assange last year. Anyone?
* * *
Support The Automatic Earth on Patreon
He–Mene Mox Mox , 3 minutes ago linkgdpetti , 12 minutes ago link
With Julian Assange now in the custody of the British, it is very doubtful anyone, including Mueller, is going to get anything out of him at this point, unless he is unconditionally guaranteed to be released. Besides, when much of this information about the Russian collusion started to materialize in 2016, he was already in the Ecuadorian Embassy evading arrest since 2012. It was the other people who worked in Wikileaks who had extracted the information about all of this, not Julian Assange. And even if he knew all the particulars, it would have been very foolish of him to keep anything within the embassy, in the event of his capture, the British would find out about who actually made the releases, who his connections were, and the depth of what they uncovered. Julian was smart enough to know this, and when the police did finally arrive to haul him out of the Ecuadorian embassy, Julian was the only thing they got.
But it was the "Russian speaking" Ukrainians, who tried to influence the elections, and they paid the Bidens, the Clintons, and the Podesta brothers handsomely. Clinton alone got $26 million from the Ukrainians.
The Steele Dossier appears to have originated from the Ukrainians too. Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko opened a probe into the so-called "black ledger" files that led to Manafort's abrupt departure from the Trump campaign. The investigation commenced after an unearthed audio recording showed that a senior Ukrainian anti-corruption official apparently admitted to leaking Manafort's financial information in 2016 -- including his ties to pro-Russian actors in the Ukraine -- to benefit Clinton.
Also, A 2017 investigation by Politico found that Ukrainian officials not only publicly sought to undermine Trump by questioning his fitness for office, but also worked behind the scenes to secure a Clinton victory.
Politico also found, the Ukrainian government worked with a DNC consultant to conduct opposition research against Trump, including going after Manafort for Russian ties, helping lead to his resignation. The big question is, was that consultant happened to be Christopher Steele, (former head of the Russia Desk for British Intelligence himself), and Fusion GPS? Peter Strzok had to know something about this, because he was the Chief of the Counterespionage Section who wanted to protect Clinton and Biden, and he was in direct contact with Michael Gaeta, head of the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime Squad Team, which specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. Believe it or not, the FBI actually proposed paying Steele to continue gathering intelligence after Election Day", but Steele "ultimately never received any payment from the FBI for any 'dossier'-related information". Strzok had to have a hand in proposing the payment too. Strzok was apart of Mueller team, until Mueller found out about Strzok's romantic connections with Lisa Page. But it became obvious at that point, Mueller's investigation was going to be railroaded by the FBI and not thorough.PGR88 , 12 minutes ago link
Same 'preserve the narrative' as with the 'investigation' of 9-11... C'mon... we all know this BS showtrial crap from our past, from other empires past... not new... same with all empires based in controlling their people thru propaganda.... and all of this is the 'outing of the OWO', so the puppet show can end and set the stage for the NWO... no puppets needed.. nor our 'markets'... nor these fake 'investigations'.hooligan2009 , 21 minutes ago link
The list goes on. Mueller indicated a Russian company that didn't even exist when the alleged "interference" happened.
His list of Russian operatives of another company was simply a list of names taken from a Russian Government telephone directory.
The whole thing was a deep-state clown show.Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 25 minutes ago link
there was never any russian government interferencethe in US presdiential election
to repeat (again), the mueller report served two purposes.
1. to erect a smoke screen and cast doubt on trump/republicans over the mid-terms to advatage the howler monkeys.
2. to divert attention from the crimes of the howler monkeys, pre-eminently clinton, over the prior 15 years. (heinous crimes - Seth Rich heinous in a conspiracy to feed at the tax payers trough via "pay to play".
does the author really think that the alphabet soup was the only set of agencies inflitrated, compromised and exploited by the howler monkey cabal?
try education, immigration, health, housing, drugs, in the US and russia, ukraine, libya, afghanistan and south america (including haiti).
you want the bread crumbs? investigate the extent of the work done by the clinton foundation.
you could start with the australian government donation of 25 million to the clinton foundation, orchestrated by alexander downer (who entrapped papadopoulos in a london bar).Posa , 25 minutes ago link
1) the Mueller report failed to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation (and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI).
Hold on- whether the Steele dossier is "Russian information" or "Russian disinformation " is irrelevant- but it is a clear case of collusion on Hillary's part!Survival Shield X2 , 32 minutes ago link
The problem Mueller has with the Steele dossier, is that if Russia did feed disinformation to Steele with the goal of interfering with US elections, then CLINTON would have been CRIMINALLY CONSPIRING with the Russians to do what Drump was accused of, since the Clinton CAMPAIGN PAID FOR the Steele dossier...
BUT if Steele made it all up (likely), Clinton would have been guilty of colluding (ie criminally conspiring) with a foreign intelligence agency (Britain's MI6) to interfere with the US elections AND Mueller's own narrative about GRU direct interference in the election would be tarnished as well.
In other words, Mueller was trapped by his own lies and his loyalty to Clinton.... Mueller should be indicted for writing a misleading report and colluding with the Clinton campPosa , 22 minutes ago link
and the DNC servers not inspected ? Crowd Strike says they were hacked by Russians so they are ?
and no looking at Seth Rich Murder ?
Load of scammy horse **** !!!tunetopper , 1 hour ago link
CrowdStrike was the only unredacted source for any of Mueller's dubious claims ... a scandal in itself... might as well directly quote KillaryPro_sanity , 1 hour ago link
Its clear now- Mueller wasnt going to investigate anything that would lead back to spying and Barr doesn't have a report that he can use to justify an investigation into spying. Voila' - status quo preserved- Deep State preserved!Anunnaki , 1 hour ago link
Ilargi: Mueller Never Wanted The Truth
All sane people knew that going in. Most were hoping a narrative might emerge to prove that wrong. None were disappointed. An utter miscarriage any sane person would say.
You know him as "Russia"
May 07, 2019 | thehill.comRobert Mueller fought the release of former FBI Director James Comey 's memos out of fear President Trump and other witnesses in the Russia investigation would use them to alter their stories, according to a court transcript obtained by CNN .
Mueller's prosecutors argued in January 2018 that the memos, which were eventually made public in April of that year, could present a conflict for their investigation if released. At the time, Mueller's team was negotiating with Trump's legal team over a potential interview.
"Special Counsel is attempting to determine the facts that transpired in and surrounding those meetings," one of Mueller's prosecutors, Michael Dreeben, said at the time, according to CNN.
"In any investigation of this kind, the recollections of one witness, if disclosed to another potential witness, have the potential to influencing, advertently or inadvertently, the recollections of that witness," he added.
Dreeben told the court that Comey's memos of his interactions with Trump were crucial in the special counsel's probe and included much more detail than Comey's public statements. He added that Mueller's office was concerned that Trump had acted to obstruct the probe.
"In this instance, a person whose conduct is within the scope of the investigation is the President of the United States," Dreeben said in court.
Mueller ultimately interviewed several Trump associates, including then-chief of staff Reince Priebus , then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates , adviser Stephen Miller and others in the administration. However, the president never agreed to meet with Mueller for a sit-down interview and declined to submit written answers to questions about potentially obstructive acts.
CNN and other media outlets last year fought for access to Comey's memos under a Freedom of Information Act request. A federal judge ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to provide a transcript of the court hearing with Mueller's prosecutors to CNN as part of the suit.
Congress received redacted versions of Comey's memos in April that were later made public. Mueller wrote in his report that he accumulated "substantial evidence" to support Comey's notes, though he declined to make a prosecutorial judgement regarding obstruction of justice.
May 07, 2019 | theintercept.com
to ensure our community remains a place for robust but civil discussion. Click here to read about the latest features in our most recent update.
1 day ago2 days ago
Hillary and the Swamp won and Trump is their puppet. They are loving Russiagate as they feed at the MIC trough. Except for Tulsi, Ilhan and Ro they are all Kochsuckers2 days ago
Ah ha! I assume the Sprawling American Spy Game has finally, honestly and truly, located the Sprawling Russian Spy Game, behind which was hiding Iraq's stockpiles of WMD. Or something.2 days ago
Are you all forgetting the REAL FOREIGN influence in America's politics? Israel and AIPAC2 days ago
Barr Launches Wide-Ranging Probe Into 2016 FBI Spying "We now know that he was being falsely accused..."
Barr's Review of FBI 'Spying' on Trump Campaign Has Wide Reach
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/barr-s-review-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign-has-a-wide-reach1 day ago
Graham to Mueller: Give testimony if you dispute Barr "Please inform the Committee if you would like to provide testimony regarding any misrepresentation by the Attorney General of the substance of the phone call," Graham wrote to Mueller in a letter dated Friday.
You mean Meuller?.....who lied about WMD and ignore illegal spying and torture and worse?
His weak protest seems to indicate he doesn't want to lose his "admired" status. Yet, he could have leaked some real beef.. Nothing hindered him from transmitting the WMD scam.2 days ago
2 days ago
Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors
2 days ago (Edited)
Incorrect. By late 2017, the FBI had confirmed that they had no evidence of Russian election interference. The long Mueller investigation made the same conclusion. What had been presented from the start were allegations -- not evidence. They never decided on just what they think Russia actually DID. Voting machines weren't hacked, there was no barrage of foreign propaganda, no trumped-up scandals against Clinton -- nothing. Would our own Dem Party leaders tell a huge, dangerous lie against Russia? Well, consider the Republican lies about "Iraq's stockpiles of WMD."
As for the 2020 election, that, too, will have nothing to do with Russia. In fact, we've talked about the key issue for years. Most votes come down to economic issues. Democrats split apart their own voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor. The Obama years confirmed that this split is permanent. In 2016, roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump, for some of the same reasons (they voted third party or withheld their votes). In the end (note to Russiagaters:) Clinton did get the most votes, but Trump got the most electoral votes -- something a foreign country couldn't hack into, influence, steal, etc. Learn how our voting system works.2 days ago (Edited)
That's not true at all. Zero prosecutions for collusion or even any cases related to Russia. Not one. Even the FBI agents said Gen Flynn didn't lie2 days ago (Edited)
Description: Fancy Bear is a Russian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU.
you believe cloudstrike?
"The report was ambiguously worded, leading some media to conflate the thinly circulated knockoff program identified by CrowdStrike with the legitimate app itself. The app's creator, Yaroslav Sherstyuk, denied his program had been compromised and pushed back against "deluded" coverage. The Ukrainian military issued a statement saying CrowdStrike got it wrong. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists seized on the confusion as proof that CrowdStrike either didn't know what it was doing or was trying to frame the Russian government."1 day ago
Logic 101 fail, Tommy.
If Trump says it's raining in Washington and the National Weather Service says it's raining in Washington, if somebody believes that it is raining in Washington it does not mean that anyone believes Trump.2 days ago
Logic failure 101
if cloudstrike is where they get their intelligence that's called bias and tainted3 days ago
That WAS investigated, and the investigation concluded what many had figured out by summer, 2017. There was no evidence of Russian interference (by any other word) with the election. Check the 2016 election results for yourself, and please answer a question. In spite of so much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, Hillary Clinton got the most votes. So, why did Russia go to such extremes to try to get Clinton elected? Seriously. Trump is president because he got the most electoral votes -- something a foreign entity couldn't influence, hack into, steal, etc. And could any of this mess have anything to do with the Clintons' business interests in Ukraine?2 days ago"Jerome Corsi, a conservative author with close ties to Trump ally Roger Stone, told Mueller that he believed his actions prompted the quick WikiLeaks release, but Mueller's report says investigators couldn't corroborate Corsi's story."So now a birther like Corsi, who can't provide evidence for his guess, is a legit source? WTF? Mueller is an Iraq war liar. If Risen wants to be treated seriously on the contents of the Mueller report, then Risen needs to retract ALL of his Reality Winner leak articles for the Intercept and apologize publicly for them. Futher more this piece is nothing more than guesses based on thin nearly dissolving evidence, so subject to contradiction by a slight change, and conflation. Again, Corsi? Rush Limbaugh is more credible often.
3 days ago
Mueller stood by as the Bush administration was caught red handed lying to congress about War and torture and illegal spying... The democrats hero....and they pretend to care about the rule of law?.....4 days ago
Orwellian Cloud Hovers Over Russia-gate. Ray McGovern calls out the void of evidence at the heart of the Senate hearing with Attorney General Barr on Wednesday. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/03/orwellian-cloud-hovers-over-russia-gate/
3 days ago
Why in the world do people think they're going to get Trump out of office through the impeachment process? Why do people think that those who will control the outcome - Republicans - will see impeachable offenses where they do and do something about it? Can you honestly see the Senate participating in some sort of historic, bipartisan coming together with the House to rid America of the man who's enriching them like no president has done before?
Did I read that Elizabeth Warren wants to impeach simply to make a show of Trump's improprieties? I couldn't disagree more with that. Don't spend my tax dollars on a show hearing. Don't waste my money on something that people who've been paying attention already know. If it takes an impeachment hearing for people to realize that Trump's a fucking creep, it's too late, anyway.3 days ago
I'm ok with letting evidence determine the outcome. But that wasn't my point, which is that, regardless of whatever is found, the Republicans aren't about to help throw Trump out of office. That simply isn't going to happen short of evidence that's too gargantuan to ignore, and that may not even do it. Many here seem to think that impeachment will lead to some sort of monster revelation, which is the only thing that's going to get Trump out of office. I wouldn't count on it.
I'm glad you mentioned Watergate, because the Republicans of today wouldn't impeach Nixon, just like their not going to impeach Trump. You're giving these people way too much credit in thinking they'll play ball on an impeachment. This is a new breed of Republican we're dealing with and they're not going to give a rat's ass what an impeachment would reveal unless it's nuclear. Why hasn't something nuclear shown up after a two year investigation into the possible existence of nuclear material?
There may well be an impeachment, and maybe there should be one. It's just not going to get Trump removed from office.5 days ago (Edited)
Mueller had 3 years and found nothing. Now is the time to look at the FBI and Hilary's conspiracy and lies and crimes and how this whole witch hunt got started .As you said "no one is above the law" !3 days ago
Poor Sonja, still stuck on the silly canard that you can only investigate Trump and the 2016 election if you're looking for an excuse for HRC's loss.
She should be reminded that at the time Mueller was launched, both houses were controlled by Republicans, and Mueller was the only investigation we had, and that it was based on Trump's incessant lying and the perjuring of his associates with respect to that election and Russia.
Many of us can admit that HRC ran a poor campaign and that Trump still committed impeachable offenses during that campaign. All investigations into Trump's finances that will occur over the coming months have been greatly facilitated by Mueller.
Bernie shares no such illusions with Sonja. He wants more investigations into that election.
Elizabeth Warren shares no such illusions. She wants impeachment.
Here is Warren last night on The Last Word :WARREN: So, look, I read the report, as you said. And when I got to the end of the report, there were three things that were very, very clear. The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election with the purpose of helping Donald Trump. The second is Donald Trump welcomed that help . And the third is that when our federal government tried to investigate after Donald Trump was inaugurated, he did everything he could to try to stop that investigation, to try to derail that investigation, to try to send that investigation somewhere else.
And the actions that he took are well documented. It's all right there in the report. I got to the end of that report and I said, look, this is not about politics, this is about the responsibility of Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and I think it's time to open impeachment proceedings.3 days ago (Edited)
I've always said let's wait for the investigation. Every time. I've always said I suspected the Trump-Russia connection was about MONEY, about getting a piece of the Russian building boom, not about any interference with the election.
I've also said that the Russian interference was very likely not aimed at electing Trump so much as it was aimed at conducting a little experiment in psyops on Americans -- an experiment which yielded much interesting data all right. I doubt anyone in on it ever thought how well it would go.
Of course, Russian agents were not the only actors. Some got in on the game for money:
I've also said that anyone who claims to be wildly incensed by what the Rooskies et al. did needs to look at the problems in our society -- with education, first and foremost, and with the utterly dysfunctional media. You know, most of what the Rooskies (or the Veles kids) did was First Amendment protected, in the sense that our government cannot punish their speech? You do get that part, right? There is no law against pretending to speak for ARMY OF JESUS, for God's sake.
Doesn't our vulnerability to sheer bullsh_t, FAR beyond anything most of us ever thought possible, concern you at all?
If you can impeach Trump for obstructing the Mueller investigation, and ensure the cure isn't even worse than the disease, I'm fine with that. I doubt that's possible. I know you haven't thought it through.
It is not clear to me whether an impeachment would even be understood by the typical addled citizen.
I have no idea what motivates your delirium any more, or your apparent obsession with certain posters here. What do you think happened? What do you think should happen?3 days ago
Having said all that, OF COURSE reflexive anti-Russian bigotry is the norm for much of America, and of course Clintonites play to it. And of course it is both evil and potentially dangerous. And of course the Clintons do not care.
There's nothing Clintons won't stoop to.
Remember the race for the nomination against Obama? (To think he picked her, and Biden. What a scam.)5 days ago (Edited)
Barr's Review of FBI 'Spying' on Trump Campaign Has Wide Reach
"Barr told the Senate Judiciary panel that he has assembled a team to determine whether there was any improper "spying" on the Trump campaign in 2016, including whether intelligence collection began earlier than previously known and how many confidential informants the FBI used. He also suggested his focus was on senior leaders at the FBI and Justice Department at the time."
"To the extent there was overreach, what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting it into their heads that they know better than the American people," Barr said. His review also will examine whether a dossier that included salacious accusations against Trump was fabricated by the Russian government to dupe U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI, Barr told the Senate panel on Wednesday. "We now know that he was being falsely accused," Barr said of Trump. "We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/barr-s-review-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign-has-a-wide-reach5 days ago
Your marked propensity to push GUILT BY ASSOCIATION at every opportunity provides useful information.
It shows us what life would really be like if the Hillary types you DO support were to gain more power.3 days ago
you're right it does provide a useful rule of thumb...if you're constantly siding with guys named Donny and Tucker and Rudy you might want to reconsider your position -- or else you're really no better than they are.3 days ago
And they think Trump is dangerous?5 days ago
Siding with evidence and facts seems to be against your rule of thumb6 days ago
proving something didn't happen. what fun. We're stuck with the Russian Urban Myth, perhaps, for forever. Those lovely Thanksgiving dinners until the whole generation passes away.
you point out Hill's retaining of the "Russian Dossier" the likely point that the DNC was never actually hacked. The placing of Stepan Halper into Trump's campaign/etc It's all water off a duck's back. Here's another one that the Cult of Mueller shall eventually be forced to burn.
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/24/special-counsel-mueller-disingenuous-and-dishonest/6 days ago (Edited)
Aaron Maté has been the best on this issue, he really has.5 days ago (Edited)
This is who Aaron Maté asked us to believe:Bill Barr: The "Cover-Up General"What does that tell you about Aaron Maté?
"At the center of the criticism is the chief articulator of Bush's imperial presidency," we wrote in 1992, "the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of foreign nationals abroad"
To even the most avid scandalmonger, these may sound like the ravings of a fevered Orwellian imagination. But in fact they are all part of a litany of wrongdoing leveled at George Bush's Justice Department in the past two months alone. And at the center of the criticism is the chief articulator of Bush's imperial presidency, the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of, foreign nationals abroad -- Attorney General William P. Barr.
https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/04/18/attorney-general-william-barr-is-the-best-reason-to-vote-for-clinton/5 days ago@aaronjmateIt has been reported tonight by the WaPo and NYTimes that Mueller did indeed object to Barr's characterization of his report and he memorialized it in a letter to Barr. Most everyone except Maté and Greenwald knew the Barr letter was dubious at best. Now Maté is actually buying the DOJ spokesperson's characterization of Mueller's letter (see bold). Remember when Maté and Greenwald were doing wildly premature victory laps based on that letter? They both assured us at the time that it was game over, that it was all a scam based on that highly suspect letter. Why would Barr lie knowing that Mueller would object was their reasoning. Well, if they had bothered to research Barr they would not have been surprised, they would have known that he was after all:
Mueller letter will spark new coverup claims. The outcry will ignore, per DOJ, that Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was "inaccurate", but was concerned about media coverage. Oh, & it'll also ignore the contents of the Mueller report that later came out.
. ..the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of, foreign nationals abroad...(see link above)
At the very least they would have been wise to have reserved judgement -- instead they shamefully wrote and Tweeted about how they were right all along based on Barr's letter.5 days ago
Should we "believe" Mueller? Should we believe anyone?5 days ago
"Here is just one example of Sonja's hero Maté talking sh*t and gleefully accepting Barr's testimony as fact. "
I can just sense your overflowing spite.
Aaron has been thorough and consistent from the get-go.
And, no, this is not a victory for any of us.
As Noam Chomsky stated, the Democrats promotion of Russiagate may have given Trump 2020.
Masha Gessen, Thomas Frank, Naomi Klein, Matt Taibbi, and Reagan's former man in Moscow, AMB Matlock all contend Russian meddling has been way overplayed.
Comey was comical when he spoke of those Russkies, scampering about, doing their nasty deeds, doing it right out in the open, not even bothering to cover their tracks.. And why did Russia, with a military one-tenth of ours, poke us in the eye? It was either Hayden, Brennan, or Clapper who explained: "Because the US makes Russia look pitiful, in comparison".. The jealous Evil Vlad wakes up every morning, plotting to bring us down to Russia's level.5 days agoI'm so old I remember when the Narrative was that Barr and Mueller were friends and it was inconceivable that Barr would mischaracterize Mueller's report. And since Mueller hadn't objected, obviously (and everybody knows this) Barr got it just right. No reasonable person could possibly think otherwise.I never said this. Since you've "seen this so many times," link to one post (or article or blog or tweet) that says it. What I suspect is that the people who embrace your narrative, as well as those who support Hillary and the DNC, are just pretending to have more money than they really have. That's usually what it is.6 days ago (Edited)
My 1970's highshool nemesis later became US Deputy Sec of Defense for the old Soviet satellites. I find nothing amusing with Red-Baiting; especially with the INF Treaty being scuttled, the massive arms buildup in Europe, and our tragic new arms race. I had hoped for a US-Russia collaboration on climate change.6 days ago (Edited)
The second link includes a video interview by Chris Hedges of Aaron Maté:They explore how the liberal fixation on "Russiagate" has handed Donald Trump a massive gift ahead of the 2020 election, and how the Democratic Party has failed to offer a meaningful alternative to his political movement.
6 days ago
It is Loser Pelosi and the deep systemic rot in the democratic party which is opposing impeachment.
By opposing impeachment you are also validating them.6 days ago
I never said I opposed impeachment.
I oppose the DNC having nothing to offer. Except of course insipid posturing, of the sort that caused such indignation that many voters stayed home, and some even voted for Caligula.6 days ago (Edited)
And what would that make Bernie (more Russia investigations) and Elizabeth Warren (impeachment)? You used to ridicule Pelosi for being a hack -- now you see her as the apparent arbiter of good sense. Go figure.6 days agonow you see her as the apparent arbiter of good sensenot at all ... as you point out at every opportunity, i couldn't care less if trump gets impeached or not
impeachment doesn't address the deep systemic rot of the democratic party, which i do care about"There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love." ― Martin Luther King, Jr.6 days ago
This.6 days ago
Ohhh... don't sell yourself short Johnny boy... you've redacted the most important part of your quote, remember?
I couldn't care less [...] if Trump is re-elected i n 2020. - Johnanderson6 days ago (Edited)
if the DNC ever nominates a real democrat my position may change6 days ago (Edited)
special considerations russia has received from its puppet trump:https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/03/15/19 Transatlantic Community Imposes Sanctions on Russia; Deputy Spokesperson Robert Palladino; Washington, DC 12/19/18 Sanctions Announcement on Russia; Office of the Spokesperson; Washington, DC 12/18/18 Russia Fact Sheet 01/30/18 Background Briefing on the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) Section 231; Via Teleconference 10/27/17 CAATSA Section 231(d) Defense and Intelligence Sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.htmlUnited States: The White House said it was expelling 60 Russian diplomats identified as intelligence agents and also announced the closure of the Russian Consulate in Seattle. It represents the most forceful action that President Donald Trump has taken against Russia to date.
Of those being expelled, 48 of the alleged intelligence agents work at the Russian Embassy in Washington and 12 are posted at the United Nations in New York, senior administration officials said.6 days ago
Even though a host of impeachable offenses emerged in the report, there are very good reasons for not proceeding to impeachment at this point in time, johnaderson , not the least of which is the spineless Republicans would block it in the Senate.
Another valid reason is that the Mueller report is the gift that keeps on giving -- it has spawned dozens of investigations and grand juries -- let them run their course.
And my pointing out that the offenses are actually impeachable does not mean I want to proceed with impeachment now -- I am countering the silly narrative advanced by Mona and Co. that this somehow resoundingly clears Trump of inappropriate behavior with respect to collusion and obstruction.6 days agoyou have previously argued that impeachment makes sense even if the senate opposes itI've said over and over again that these offenses are impeachable , i.e, worthy of being included in articles of impeachment. I did say at one point that I increasingly respect Elizabeth Warren's position that the Democrats should impeach for solely for the record -- i.e. to show that this behavior should not be condoned. But right now I think that is still premature -- let Trump play defense as the myriad of new investigations gain momentum, and when they reach a critical mass that not even the Republicans (and faux progressives) can ignore, then impeach.6 days ago
It sure looks the MSM's biased coverage is handing the nomination to Biden who will lose to Trump.6 days ago (Edited)
Still cannot understand what the Russians did to influence the election.
Hacking DNC emails to show the primary was rigged? I am supposed to care that the dems got caught cheating? I say great, more exposure of corruption the better. The Russians did us a service.
Facebook ads, fake rallies? You have to be kidding. Was a mere drop in a very large bucket of activity. Sounds to me like a group of people being paid for doing work that could not possibly matter.
So Russian spies are trying to mess with us. Yawn.
Does the US influence elections? I'm pretty sure we do. And what does the US do when it really does not want a certain person to be the president of a country? Screw your elections. How about a missile strike from a drone.
Or how about bombing the crap out of a country to overturn the results of that countries last election. Based on - wait for it - false information from the US intelligence community about some nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
Surveillance? How about surveillance on the actual leader of one of the most important countries in the world. Tapping the phone of Merkel. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-german-chancellery-decades-wikileaks-claims-merkel
The US is engaged in activity several orders of magnitude greater than what the Russians are alleged to have done. The way in which this minor Russian meddling has been blown out of proportion to how the world actually works is frightening.6 days ago
Forget, Russia -- at the end of the day, this is about Donald Trump and his behavior. We can all agree that the US has been engaged in their share of reprehensible behavior. Ask yourself what would have happened if Angela Merkle's political opponent was cheering the US's effort to tap her phone. Ask what would happen if this opponent publicly called for the US to tap her phone. Ask yourself what would happen if this adversary gained great political advantage from the release of this information. Ask yourself what would happen if this political adversary was involved in a mega real estate deal that would have profit him millions of Deutschmarks with interests that had direct economic ties to the US president during an election , and he not only concealed this and denied this during an election, he doubled down and brazenly lied about it until a LOI was published. Actually, that doesn't even begin to explain how wrong Trump's behavior is -- the US is actually a German ally!6 days ago
At the end of the day, it's about distraction from the undemocratic, and illegitimate election process we have in this country.
- Never mind that the anointed candidate is as corrupt and dirty as the phony cartoon candidate that wasn't supposed to win.
- Never mind that she has two faces, one for the PTB and one for the chumps.
- Never mind that the party she represents lied and cheated its own members.
- Never mind that their agenda is to protect the status quo, not represent the majority in this country.
It is NOT about Donald Trump, although that's what has been sickeningly over promoted while the Schumers and Pelosis of the world continue to give him his judges and his 3x too big war budget.
It's about malfeasance of the unDemocratic party and their effort to "hold the effing center"6 days ago
The desperately reckless harm Russiagate Central -- MSNBC -- has causedGlenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald Follow Follow @ggreenwald
More Jingoistic fear, using a dreary script taken from the Cold War, saved an entire cable network and enriched its hosts beyond what can be imagined. But the harm will endure permanently among a whole new generation of liberals who paid attention to politics for the first time [supporting example at link
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1123232222088245249 ]6 days ago
Matt Taibbi read the Mueller Report!Let's start with what isn't in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Report on The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election: There's no blackmail, no plan by Vladimir Putin of "at least five years" to cultivate Donald Trump, no hundred-million-dollar bribe offered by Rosneft chief Igor Sechin to Carter Page, and no "regular exchange" of intelligence between Russia and Trump, who according to British ex-super spy Christopher Steele had been informing on Russian oligarchs' activities in America, for Putin, dating back at least "8 years.""Russiagate was journalist QAnon (Part 1) - The Mueller report reveals: three years of news coverage was insane conspiracy theory" https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-was-journalist-qanon-part
There is also no trip to Prague by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen; no quid pro quo of any kind , no Trump "sidelining Russian intervention in Ukraine" as a campaign issue in exchange for DNC leaks; no "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation" between Russia and the Trump campaign using Page and others as intermediaries; and no "extensive sexual services from [Russian] prostitutes."
5 days ago (Edited)
"Read the report!"
Insist the Russiagate dead-enders when asked for specific evidence of their baseless, hysterical claims. They cannot get specific , so constantly revert to :"Do your own research!" is a common phrase used by conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters of various creeds in response to people who are skeptical of their claims. This phrase is a form of the escape hatch (Argumentum ad googlam) used by a charlatan who wants to win the argument but does not want to bear the burden of proof. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research6 days ago
Both impeachment and trial are purely political. They have nothing to do with the law. If you have the votes, it happens. If not, not.
Exhibit A: The Andrew Johnson impeachment and trial. He was impeached and tried for UPHOLDING the Constitution. He got off because the Senators from Kansas were bribed for their votes.
The impeachment was illegal BUT was actually a good idea. Johnson was condoning murder and supporting the South's efforts to terrorize citizens. He had to be neutralized.
Exhibit B: The Clinton impeachment.
Arguing law in such cases is meaningless.6 days ago (Edited)
But I have some more specifics for you , Felix. From Aaron's dispositive debunking of your conspiracy theories:6. THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING REALLY WAS JUST A "WASTE OF TIME" The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was widely dubbed the "Smoking Gun." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."I've read the Report, and Aaron is accurate. Since you claim to also have read it, do you take any issue with Aaron here?
But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure the meeting, because in reality, as he told NPR, "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]."
The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."6 days ago
TI Rule No. 5:
Only Glenn Greenwald gets to use incendiary war metaphors:
The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect Glenn Greenwald
6 days ago
Felix translated: "I can't cite three specific examples of Russian "attacks" -- with supporting evidence -- and am so pissed people keep demanding it!"6 days ago
Oh, and Felix, below I incorporated this by reference and endorsed it as my own understanding and views: Aaron Maté's "The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory - The real Russiagate scandal is the damage it has done to our democratic system and media." https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/
I do understand that none of you Russiagate dead-enders wish to address Aaron's definitive debunking of your conspiracy theories. Really, I do. But t here is no better analysis of the Mueller Report (which I've repeatedly read) available anywhere.6 days ago
Where do you get this nonsense, Alberto?
Keep lining CNN pockets, be my guest. But don't be shocked, shocked if we are stuck with Trump again, while they snicker all the way to the bank.6 days ago
Someone based in Russia paying 8 thousand dollars for some facebook ads does not constitute an attack. Especially not in the context of a multibillion dollar election. And especially when most of the ads only appeared when the election was over and did not even consistently support or attack any particular candidate. Podesta's emails exposing the real Hillary Clinton were given to Wikileaks by a DNC staffer, sickened by their treatment of Bernie.
If you are aware of something else that could be considered an actual attack by Russia then please name it and give some details.6 days ago
-- Another worthy independent media pieceThe embarrassing implosion of the Russiagate story, following two years of wall-to-wall coverage in the mainstream press, is yet another reminder why we can't rely on corporate media to deliver the news. For two years, corporate news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have peddled gossip and misinformation about how Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. None of this coverage had anything to do with the lives of most Americans, 80 percent of whom live paycheck to paycheck; if they have health insurance, they can't afford to get sick and pay their deductible. America's mainline media is owned and controlled by six corporations. It should come as no surprise that media outlets beholden to corporations do not always serve the needs of ordinary people; nor are they effective watchdogs of a political system financed by the very same corporate interests. The Russiagate affair consumed so much attention that MSNBC went almost a year without mentioning the war in Yemen, where the U.S. is actively helping the richest country in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, destroy the poorest one, killing tens of thousands of Yemeni people through its brutal bombing campaign and the famine that that campaign is causing. Another story drowned out in the sea of Russiagate coverage is that the United States is presently helping to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela in a brazen coup attempt -- and on behalf of U.S. corporate interests eager to exploit the nation's oil resources. As Noam Chomsky observed, our media's endless obsession with a few Facebook ads purchased by Russians has made the U.S. a laughingstock to the hundreds of millions of people who live in countries where the U.S. has actually overthrown their democratically elected leaders and installed puppets who serve American corporate interests.
1 week ago
That's not what the article says.
If you can't understand it, maybe you should blame the steady diet of CNN for your debilitated state. They have done you a greater disservice than you are able to perceive.1 week ago
The detritus above is cured by Aaron Maté here: "The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory - The real Russiagate scandal is the damage it has done to our democratic system and media." https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/ Maté definitively addresses these points:1. RUSSIAGATE WITHOUT RUSSIA 2. RUSSIAGATE'S PREDICATE LED NOWHERE 3. SERGEY KISLYAK HAD "BRIEF AND NON-SUBSTANTIVE" INTERACTIONS WITH THE TRUMP CAMP 4. TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW HAD NO HELP FROM MOSCOW 5. AND TRUMP DIDN'T ASK COHEN TO LIE ABOUT IT 6. THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING REALLY WAS JUST A "WASTE OF TIME" 7. MANAFORT DID NOT SHARE POLLING DATA TO MEDDLE IN THE US ELECTION 8. THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS FICTION 9. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD NO SECRET CHANNEL TO WIKILEAKS 10. THERE WAS NO COVER-UP
1 week ago
About Point 1, Aaron writes:The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later). It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect. " If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with, perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.1 week ago
(Bumping one of my first comments from yesterday to top because so very many below absurdly claim to believe vindicated skeptics are the ones who need to read the Report. Aaron Maté won an Izzie for his Russigate reporting and has read the Report at a granular level. I, who have read the Report more than once, hereby incorporate all of Maté's piece by reference as my own analysis and views. I've yet to see any of the Russiagate dead-enders tackle Aaron's definitive work here in debunking their conspiracy narrative.)1 week ago
" It's a tour de force"
It absolutely is.
But what is clearly happening is that the legions of journalists who fueled the Russiagate panic -- including Jim Risen -- will suffer no adverse consequences for having done so. Nor will Aaron greatly benefit for having been right. (Journalists who win Izzies, as Arron did for his Russiagate reporting, are esteemed in progressive circles, but are not generally rewarded with high status jobs.)
Enormous wrongness on Russiagate will ruin reputations to the same degree huge wrongness on WMDs and Iraq did (except for the one sacrificial lamb that was Judith Miller), which is to say there will be no reputational harm in elite venues. Russiagate hysterics, as with the Iraq war cheerleaders, will fail upwards. (Likely a symptom of late stage capitalism.)1 week ago
Why Didn't Mueller Investigate Whether Steele Dossier Was Russian Disinfo?
"Perhaps the most glaring omission is Mueller's failure to consider that the infamous "Steele Dossier" - which used Kremlin sources - could have been Russian disinformation itself. "
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-27/strassel-why-didnt-mueller-investigate-whether-steele-dossier-was-russian-disinfo1 week ago
Mueller didn't investigate the Steele Dossier because he didn't use it. Every mention of the Steele Dossier in the Mueller Report refers to panicky Trumpies worrying about the dossier but Mueller himself only refers to it as unverified allegations. Are you sure you've read the Mueller Report, Comrade?1 week ago (Edited)
The Steele Dossier was what started the witch-hunt and the FBI used it to illegally spy on Trump. Isikoff Stunned That His Carter Page Article Was Used To Justify Spy Warrant
Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was "a bit beyond me" that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application. (RELATED: Spy Warrant Relied On Dossier And News Stories Planted By Fusion GPS)
"Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had," he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016. Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page. "It's self-referential," he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2018/02/02/isikoff-stunned-carter-page
1 week ago
There was no crime. The dossier was completely unsubstantiated and bogus. They used it to blackmail Trump and illegally spy on his campaign. even Isakoff says so
Reporter who broke Steele dossier story says ex-British agent's claims 'likely false'
so Who are the criminals?1 week ago
"Every mention of the Steele Dossier in the Mueller Report refers to panicky Trumpies worrying about the dossier but Mueller himself only refers to it as unverified allegations."
LOL The revisionism of you Russigaters is absolutely hilarious. (And what chutzpah from a guy who keeps insisting others haven't read the Report -- you obviously have not!)
So, from a fine journalist who thoroughly studied the Mueller Report:8. THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS FICTION The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent politicians, pundits, and media outlets promoted it as credible.
The Mueller report, The New York Times noted last week, has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later denied the claim under oath , and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague." After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that" the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
Christ on a crutch, Mike, but if you are going to accuse others of not having read the Report, you should take greater care not to betray that you are actually referencing yourself .
Now, go read Aaron Mate's definitive debunking of your Russiagate delusions, from which I quoted above: "The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory" https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/1 week ago (Edited)
Michael Tracey Verified account @mtracey "According to former Trump lawyer John Dowd, Trump complained that the Mueller investigation would often be brought up by world leaders during unrelated discussions, hindering Trump's ability to conduct foreign affairs. Another ramification of this fiasco that gets overlooked"
That was the entire point.To hinder his ability to implement policy and diplomacy. To delegitimize him, that was the goal. It was never about collusion.
Here's a ramification that is overlooked. Qaddafi co-operated with the US by dismantling his WMD program, then his nation was destroyed and he was brutally murdered by extremist lunatics while Hillary laughed.
Kim Jong Un learned a valuable lesson. Don't negotiate with US because they lie.
P.S. In response and as an addendum to my own post, whoever has predicted that Trump is fully swamp-i-fied and will attack Iran in one form or another within one year of his being re-elected (that is, one year before or one year after) wins the door prize.
Just today Israel handed out some oil exploration contracts to a Dick Cheney related firm in the occupied Golan Heights. The Iranian Rev. Guard was recently declared a terrorist group. Saudi Arabia just executed 37+ people for what amounts to homophobia - with ZERO push back from the US State Department or Trump, and of course the Kashoggi thing is all but forgotten.
Criminal mastermind Netanyahu just managed to get re-elected yet again. All signs point toward another costly ME (or dare I say, South American) war which will likely coincide with a serious recession given that the economic reports and outlook are being propped up on meaningless metrics by the right leaning corporate media. When you do a deep dive and look at what really matters, it's pretty clear that without a war, there's a recession, or worse, on the way.1 week ago
1 week ago
They cant let Russiagate go since they have yet to completely criminalize real journalism.....why do you think they arrested Manning again?
Assange Exposes Democrat Fascists, Torturers & Warmongers
Tulsi Gabbard: Most Attacks I Get Are From Democrats | Surprisingly Scorching Speech
Glenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald
Ronald Reagan, 1983, on the moral and patriotic duty to stand up to the evil Russians, and never suggest equivalencies between the actions of Washington and Moscow, since one is Good, the other Evil:
Ronald Reagan Evil Empire Speech (Excerpt)
https://youtu.be/M0NXs_uWPgg1 week ago
1 week ago
"Idiot changes platform to favor Putin,"
Didn't happen. Changes in the platform weren't Trump's:1) The Mysterious Change to the 2016 Republican Party Platform Concerning Ukraine During the 2016 Republican National Convention, the party quietly altered its platform, removing language calling on the United States to provide "lethal defensive weapons" to Ukraine to protect itself against Russian aggression.https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/6-scandals-the-mueller-report-puts-to-rest-824441/
Many speculated that the change may have been directed by Trump to please Russia. The Mueller team determined this was not the case, writing: "The investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
1 week ago
"You should read the Mueller Report."
Aaron Mate has read and deeply analyzed the Mueller Report: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/28/mueller-report-trump-russia-questions/?commentId=21ab14b9-5404-4e8a-8bbc-1cf326c9ad5f1 week ago
Is that a dead horse?.....I cant tell anymore...
Aaron Maté Verified account @aaronjmate Apr 26
New from me: Russiagate promoters led their audiences to believe in a Trump-Russia conspiracy & that Mueller would prove it. Mueller did the opposite: his report amounts to an indictment of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, and that's the real scandal:
The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory The real Russiagate scandal is the damage it has done to our democratic system and media. By Aaron MatéTwit
And this thread and take down of the now certifiable Maddow and her lies,a nice list.
Aaron Maté Verified account @aaronjmate Replying to @maddow
1/ If YouTube were to recommend your show, it'd be recommending the leading purveyor of now debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, falsehoods & innuendo of the last 2+ years. Here's a sample:
Aaron Maté's 22-tweet thread detailing myriad of Rachel Maddow's unhinged, baseless and hysterical assertions about...RUSSIA111!!11!!
Apr 04, 2019 | www.breitbart.comThe disgraceful team of partisan investigators hired by Dirty Cop Robert Mueller just disgraced themselves further through a series of unforgivable leaks to the fake news media.
Obviously angry over the fact President Trump is so innocent they could not even come up with a way to frame him, "Some of Mueller's investigators," the far-left New York Times reports, "have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated."
Told associates *wink-wink* -- Oops, I had no idea *wink-wink* it would make the front page of the Times ! *digs toe in dirt*
These sleaze bags are also leaking (through more "associates!") to the far-left Washington Post.
"Members of Mueller's team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant," the Post reports. "'It was much more acute than Barr suggested,' said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity."
Of course, and just like the entire Russia Collusion Hoax, none of these complaints makes a lick of sense because it was not just Barr who signed off on the four page Mueller Report summary that cleared Trump of collusion and obstruction; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also signed off on the summary and Rosenstein, if you recall, is the original Dirty Cop who appointed Mueller in the first place.
What's more, when you are talking about a special counsel, this kind of exoneration is almost always unprecedented. In the past, these investigations have always hit pay dirt, always -- by hook or crook -- found a way to justify their existence, which was no doubt Mueller's plan when he hired only partisan Democrats to join his hunt.
But these Dirty Cops found nothing on Trump, nada, bupkis -- a big, fat, stinkin' zero.
Oh, sure they found some old crimes no one cared about until the accused went to work for Trump.
Oh, sure they found a few Russians who spent a few bucks on Facebook ads, most of them in opposition to Trump.
Oh, sure they destroyed the life of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn by threatening his son over a contrived process crime.
Trump, however, is so freakin' innocent they couldn't even rig a frame for him, so now Mueller's Dirty Stinkin' Cops are pouting and bitter and vengeful and violating every known legal ethic to smear Trump in the court of public opinion by way of the sleaziest kind of innuendo imaginable.
You see, these Dirty Cops know how it works
Every legal ethic and everything that makes America America says that if an individual has not been charged with a crime, the legal system does not download on that person, does not release information about the investigation against this person, does not try to makes a case against this person's reputation in the court of public opinion.
If you recall, this is what disgraced former FBI Director James Comey did to Hillary Clinton. This is why everyone believed she was going to be charged over her email server -- because Comey downloaded on her, publicly laid out her crimes before telling us she would not be charged.
No matter what you think of Hillary or the crimes she committed, no matter how unjust the decision was to let her off the hook, if someone is not going to be charged it is unethical and un-American for a lawman to do what Comey did -- to lay out his case against her.
So what Mueller's Dirty Cops are trying to do here is put Trump and Barr in a Catch 22.
You see, if Barr does the right thing, if he is an honorable attorney general (and American), when he does release what he can of the 400 page Mueller Report next week, other than the top-line findings (no collusion, no obstruction) nothing else will be made public about Trump or anyone else who was not charged with a crime.
We don't do that in this country.
But now that Mueller's Dirty Cops have left this trail of slime, the Russia Collusion Hoax can live on forever!
Don't you see, there's more! More, I say! More!
In a tweet late Wednesday, Trump's legal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, got it exactly right after the leaks hit the fake media.
"The NYT story about unspecified troubling findings in report is as accurate as the NYT saying Mueller's staff didn't leak," Giuliani wrote. "Who leaked this Mueller's unethical staff. This proves they are Angry Democrats who couldn't find or create evidence to support collusion or obstruction."
During a Fox News appearance, he went even further:
[These leaks] makes the point that we've been making for two years: Despite all of the media reports about how holy and sanctimonious the Mueller team is, they are a bunch of sneaky, unethical leakers, and they are rabid Democrats who hate the president of the United States.
And I can't tell you how much false information they leaked during the course of the investigation. How many people are going to be indicted that didn't get indicted? How many -- how many blockbusters were there? Starting with Papadopoulos and ending with Cohen, who turns out to be a serial liar. I mean, how could you have any confidence in this?
If only through his presence and victory, Trump has accomplished an invaluable service in exposing the Justice Department, the F.B.I., the corporate media, and the intelligence community as an un-American cabal of venal, power-mad, entitled thugs with no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution.
Never again will these sleazy bastards be trusted, because they cannot be trusted. The corruption, the arrogance, the incompetence, the desire to rule over us, to overturn elections that do not come out their liking
From Iraq to Trump -- these monsters can all go straight to Hell.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC . Follow his Facebook Page here .
May 06, 2019 | aim4truth.org
When we saw these tweets from George Papadopoulos, we thought we could help him out with some answers. If you can get them to George, please do.
Has congress figured out why Peter Strzok's former boss, Bill Priestap, was in London (of all places) the days before Alexander Downer was sent to spy on me and lie about our meeting? If not, time to get a move on it.
-- George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) March 12, 2019
Britain is in a political crisis. To push Brexit hard, declassifying the spy role of the David Cameron government on Trump and his team is paramount. Congress can not overlook the vital importance of London as the center of the coup attempt.
-- George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) March 12, 2019
What was I REALLY under surveillance for then? Explosive https://t.co/AVGlfwi5ld
-- George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) March 13, 2019
Our reply to George:
Bill Priestap was the Director of the FBI national security division and would have gone to the London CIA "office" for a meeting. There he would have met with Stefan Halper and Gina Haspel who was, at the time, head of the London CIA office and would have been in charge of the connections with Robert Hannigan (British GCHQ) and John Brennan who planned and executed the wiretapping of Trump Team at Trump Towers. Haspel's communications, when released, will reveal the full scope of the CIA led international attack on the 2016 presidential election.Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of this to the President Trump, she is complicit in the overthrow attempt and is guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Keep in mind, Peter Strzok was a CIA Regional Director who John Brennan appointed as the head of Crossfire Hurricane, the CIA counter-intelligence operation to "take out" candidate Trump – later it became the Mueller Witch Hunt after 13 different iterations spanning:
the CIA (John Brennan),
FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, etc.),
DoJ (Loretta Lynn, Sally Yates, Andrew Weisseman),
State Department (Victoria Nuland, Jonathon Winer, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry),
ODNS (James Clapper),
NSA (Admiral Mike Rogers)
and the White House senior staff (directly to Obama, Biden, Jarret, Rice, Powers, etc.).
Bill Preistap was the supervisor for Strzok and Lisa Page who also worked for John Carlin in the Department of Justice National Security Division under Sally Yates. Then Strozk and Page continued their CIA operation as they were appointed to Mueller's Special Council Investigation.
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation – John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis. She certainly was controlling Stefan Halper , Josef Mifsud , Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and the other conspirators.
All of these facts are well known and reported in open source documents. As the 53 testimonies of the House Intelligence Committee are released, we will see the house of cards all fall down and Gina Haspel will go with it.
Keep in mind Haspel was Michael Gaeta's handler. Michael Gaeta handled the frame-up of George Papadopoulos .
May 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Barr replied that he had yet to "go through the full scope of [Mueller's] investigation to determine whether he did address or look at all into those issues," but that he would "try to assemble all the existing information out there about it, not only for the Hill investigations and the OIG, but also to see what the Special Counsel looked into. So I really couldn't say what he looked into."
Meanwhile, Barr said that he has assembled a DOJ team to examine Mueller's investigation, findings, and whether the spying conducted by the FBI against the Trump campaign in 2016 was improper.
Mueller's second major oversight - which we have touched on repeatedly - is the special counsel's portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud was a Russian agent - when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent. Weeks after returning from Moscow, Mifsud - a self-described Clinton Foundation member - 'seeded' the rumor that Russia had 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016, according to the Mueller report.
As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) noted on Fox News on Sunday, " how is it that we spend 30-plus-million dollars on this, as taxpayers and they can't even tell us who Joseph Mifsud is? "
"...this is important, because, in the Mueller dossier, they use a fake news story to describe Mifsud. In one of those stories, they cherry- pick it," Nunes added.
BARTIROMO: Then he's working for Trump. So how come somebody from Britain, Australia, Italy, they're all reaching out to him? And, by the way, how come this London Center of International Law reached out to Papadopoulos on LinkedIn to go work there, after Ben Carson withdrew?
NUNES: And I think a better question is, is that -- so, Papadopoulos claims that he was quitting this London Center.
So how many companies or agencies that you know of, when you say, hey, I'm quitting, and they say, hey, what about a free four-to-five-day vacation in Rome? We're going to fly you there. We're going to put you up for free. We're going to give you food... And all you have to do is meet this guy Mifsud, right... We're trying to get to the bottom of Mifsud . So, as we talked about it on the last segment, this guy originates the investigation. We know that the Mueller team wrote this Mueller dossier. They used a lot of these news stories that, in fact, sometimes were generated by leaks from the FBI.
Now, I don't think the American people expect 20 DOJ lawyers and 40 FBI agents to write a 450-page report that's built off of news stories that in many cases they generated.
Why I particularly have a problem with this is -- with one of the stories is because they pick a news story, and then they cherry-pick from it. So they use it partly to describe where Mifsud worked, but then they fail to say in that same story that they have given support to by using it in the Mueller dossier , they cherry-pick it. -Via RealClearPolitics
As conservative commentator and former US Secret Service agent Dan Bongino notes of Mifsud, "either we have a Russian asset who's infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up George Papadopoulos."
Perhaps Mueller's reportedly scheduled testimony next week will shed more light on why he failed to question the possible role of Russian disinformation with the Steele Dossier , and why he didn't flush out who Joseph Mifsud really is .
Other omissions, meanwhile, are on the table as well...Rep. Matt Gaetz ✔ @RepMattGaetz
Robert Mueller never inquired about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's "insurance policy" when he fired Strzok. When Mueller testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee, I'm going to ask why he never even asked about what evidence might have been polluted by Strzok and Page.
pippi68 , 6 minutes ago linkpippi68 , 12 minutes ago link
Hillary paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS to write a fake dossier and then paid Christopher Steele to try to infuse what they wrote with a little authenticity. To anyone who is not brain dead, the whole dossier read like 4chan fan fiction and was laughable from the very start. The whole thing was an obvious set up to all observers (even the Dems though they will cling to their lies to the very end and continue to double down). Most people are growing tired of their antics and their virtue signalling and moralizing.Lord Raglan , 14 minutes ago link
The House Committee will just mute the microphones and prevent anyone from asking a worthwhile probing question to Mueller during the hearing. It will be the usual circus, but totally transparent to all who do not suffer from chronic TDS.MrButtoMcFarty , 15 minutes ago link
If Mifsud turns out to be a CIA operative or paid FBI agent, all to set up the Trump Campaign, there are probably going to be 50 indictments at least.CatInTheHat , 16 minutes ago link
SPYGATE trials start in the fall/winter... FBI Departures:
- James Comey, director (fired)
- Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
- Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
- Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
- James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
- James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
- Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
- Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
- James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
- Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
- Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
- John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
- Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
- Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
- David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
- Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
- Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
- John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
- Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
- Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
- Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
- Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
- Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
- Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
- Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
- Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)
Don't forget the popcorn...it's going to be a beautiful thing.LOL123 , 16 minutes ago link
'why he failed to question the possible role of Russian disinformation with the Steele Dossier , and why he didn't flush out who Joseph Mifsud really is .".
Come ON! YOU KNOW THIS is ********! There was no Russian disinformation and that sounds just like out of the Integrity Initiative in the UK and sponsored by the foreign office that seeks to quell Russian disinformation.
This whole thing is DELIBERATE to demonize Russia..
The only "Russian disinfo came from SKRIPAL who has now been poisoned and taken to a secret location to serve out the remainder of his life so that he never talks again!TaxesLiterallyAreTheft , 18 minutes ago link
Here is your Hillary Russian agent connected to 2016 election and the true obstruction of justice pirate :
On Sep. 22, 2011 , Barry Diller appointed Chelsea Clinton, then a college student, to be a director of IAC/Interactivecorp which has a current market value of $10 billion. At the same time, Diller appointed Sonali De Rycker of Accel Partners LLP London and formerly Goldman Sachs. Accel is the largest inside shareholder in Facebook after Mark Zuckerberg.
See the Dec. 13, 2016 verified SEC list of IAC/Interactivecorp media holdings . It includes many leading dating sites in North America and Europe including:
- Ask Jeeves search
- Datings sites all over the planet (e.g., Match.com everywhere, Five Star Matchmaking (China), FriendScout (Germany), SpeedDate, Mash Dating)
- Home Advisor
- IAC Search
- The Daily Beast
- NBC Universal
- and 177 other companies
It should also be noted that on Mar. 11, 2009 , IAC/Interactivecorp received what has been, in effect, a PERMANENT CONFIDENTIALITY EXEMPTION from the SEC from reporting its Google AdSense revenue numbers in its public reporting. This is totally outrageous. See the redacted revenue numbers from Google AdSense on IAC/Interactivecorp's 10-K, Exhibit 10-25 on Mar. 11, 2009 .
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had an ethical duty to disclose to the public her conflicts of interest in Chelsea Clinton's appointment as director of IAC/Interactivecorp in 2011. Given Chelsea's ties to Facebook director and venture capitalist Accel Partners, the Clinton's engaged in obstruction of justice in the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement lawsuit as well as the Ceglia v. Zuckerberg contract dispute. Also, Chelsea's relationship to Barry Diller shows that mainstream media was engaging in undisclosed bias for the Clintons and against Donald Trump."
Hillary paid Facebook starting on Nov. 26, 2009 to write a " Template for winning elections" directed by RUSSIAN Dmitry Schevelenko of FACEBOOK.
Hillarys conflicts of interests never reveled as Secretary of State can and should be investigated by House Democrats instead of magical fabrications of obstruction of justice by Barr.....
If this wasn't such comic relief for conservatives it would be written as a template for losers.👎😄🌾AK Refugee , 20 minutes ago link
Mueller and the other intel guys were there to be an exit strategy for the dems, hide the bodies, and make sure to bungle or destroy any evidence that could be used against them. no duhKing of Ruperts Land , 24 minutes ago link
So... if we investigate The Mueller Report, is that a Special-Special Counsel, or a Super-Special Counsel?
Either way, the target is a Counsel investigation that was not so special (read corrupted).
Competent counter-intelligence guards against being caught... these fools were already in over their heads by the time it dawned on them that victory was not assured.
And to that end, there is no one in the intelligence community that would have had an early inkling that HRC could blow (poor choice of words, sorry to creep you out) the election (against any Republican nominee) save for someone with authority (executive), motivation (legacy), and accurate polling. Gee... who could that have possibly been?Goodsport 1945 , 25 minutes ago link
Mueller and his guys were the cleanup men. They disolved all the bodies with acid and lye and then wiped up with bleach.Golden Showers , 26 minutes ago link
It's hardly incompetence. There was only one goal - take Trump down. To Hell with the facts.steve golf , 31 minutes ago link
Steele was a Confidential Human Source on the FBI payroll back in 2016. Steele had a handling agent. I'd sure like to know who the handler was. So, how directly the **** is Steele not a liar? The FBI apparently stopped their relationship with Steele as a CHS when Steele told a 3rd party he was an FBI source. Check it out: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-records-show-dossier-author-deemed-not-suitable-for-use-as-source-show-several-fbi-payments-in-2016/
I'd say that Mueller didn't want to go into it and would rather not talk about it. How fucked up is that?mc888 , 38 minutes ago link
Duh! Meuller is protecting the cabal that tried to oust Trump.JethroBodien , 40 minutes ago link
Mueller's appointment by Rosenstein was illegal and the stated purpose of said investigation was outside the scope of a Special Counsel.
The purpose of the report is to propagate and lend some credibility to the lies that Russia somehow interfered in our elections, hacked the DNC, and Mifsud was a Russian agent.
These claims have already been conclusively disproven by multiple sources. Mifsud is MI6 hiding in Italy so he doesn't get Skripal'ed.SmittyinLA , 45 minutes ago link
Hmmm. You would think Mueller and his team would vet the authenticity of Steele dossier and look into the bleach biting of Hitlery's e-mail server since both were prima facie evidence in this whole charade. The fact this wasn't done is quite damning in and of itself and suggests the Mueller team was complicit in the entire "Russian Collusion" hoax.OLD-Pipe , 43 minutes ago link
What about the Anthony Weiner "insurance"? https://www.dvcinquirer.com/opinion/2016/11/17/anthony-weiners-life-insurance-file-opens-fbi-investigation-on-the-clinton-foundation/Bobportlandor , 43 minutes ago link
"confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."
And how is this different from the Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Iran False Flags ???????? Not one time has Hit-Lary personnel written or spoken that the leaked intel about the DNC and Clinton 2019 presidential campaign was False....the whole Russia-Gate is a Cover-up of the Crimes of the DNC and Deep State during the Obozo Administration, during the electoral Process for the 2019 Presidential Elections, by the DNC, Clinton's, and the Deep State - NeoCon's.......Thats why Trump won the Election.... We the People are tired of the never ending **** show in D.C., and We the People voted for anyone running on the Novel Idea of Change!!!!Boris Gudonov , 43 minutes ago link
I wonder when the FBI investigates crimes against the United States and find a nothing burger do they all ways write up a 448 report?
Everyone in America knows that the Mueller investigation was a fraud predicated on fabricated evidence, that Obama used government intelligence agencies to spy on and entrap the political opposition, and that Crooked Hillary Clinton and her minions are guilty of numerous crimes, mishandling of classified information being the least of these offenses.
The only thing the whole country is waiting for is to find out what these ******* criminals are going to get away with.
May 06, 2019 | www.breitbart.com
A largely unreported footnote in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller's final report raises immediate questions about the Obama-era FISA warrant obtained to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a tangential adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Mueller's report explained that his team did not find evidence that can be used to charge anyone from the Trump campaign as acting as an agent of a foreign government. It says the FISA warrant to spy on Page was obtained using a "different (and lower) standard" of evidence claiming Russian involvement.
Mueller's team utilized the standards outlined in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which "requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal."
The report stated:
The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian Government – or at its direction control, or request-during the relevant time period.
That paragraph contained a footnote about the FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Page, which was obtained based on warrant applications that cited as evidence against Page information from the infamous, largely-discredited, Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier.
The footnote says the Page FISA warrant was obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) court utilizing a "different (and lower) standard than the one governing" governing Mueller's office.
States the footnote:
On four occasions, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) issued warrants based on a finding of probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 (b), 1805(a)(2)(A). The FISC's probable-cause finding was based on a different (and lower) standard than the one governing the Office's decision whether to bring charges against Page, which is whether admissible evidence would likely be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Page acted as an agent of the Russian Federation during the period at issue. Cf United States v. Cardoza, 713 F.3d 656, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (explaining that probable cause requires only "a fair probability," and not "certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence").
In late October 2016, then-FBI director James Comey signed the first of three successful FISA applications to obtain warrants to spy on Page. The second and third were renewal applications since a FISA warrant must be renewed every 90 days.
All three applications reportedly cited as key evidence against Page the dossier produced by the controversial Fusion GPS firm which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm.
According to Republican House characterizations , the FISA applications signed by Comey withheld key information raising questions about the dossier, including that it was financed by Clinton and the DNC and had known credibility issues.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
May 06, 2019 | www.breitbart.com
During a Sunday interview on New York AM 970 radio's "The Cats Roundtable," Rep. Peter King (R-NY) slammed FBI special counsel Robert Mueller for how he handled the almost two-year investigation into alleged collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
King said it "couldn't have taken Bob Mueller that long" to find out if there was collusion.
"The reports we get are that they knew a year ago there was no collusion. Well, didn't [Mueller] have an obligation to tell the president of the United States that? To let the world know? The president has gone off to negotiate with Kim Jong-un. He is involved, obviously, in very sensitive negotiations all the time in the Middle East," King told host John Catsimatidis.
He continued, "I think that the Mueller people had an obligation to tell the president, to tell the country, to tell the world that there was no collusion whatsoever as soon as they found out there was none. This isn't like you're dealing with some local drug dealer or something. You're talking about, whether you like him or not, he is the leader of the country. The leader of the free world. And they let this hang over him for at least a year It was wrong not to make it known."
Mar 25, 2019 | www.politifact.com
In summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference, Attorney General Bill Barr said there were two major questions the investigation examined: whether there was coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct justice. The report did not establish coordination or collusion.
That lack of proof on collusion is one of the reasons for not pursuing an obstruction-of-justice prosecution, Barr said: There was no underlying crime from Russia connections for Trump to cover up.
While Barr said this wasn't the only factor that played into the decision about whether to prosecute, he explicitly cited it as one of them.
In the 24 hours after the Barr letter was released, we noticed a lot of cable TV debate about whether someone can or can't be tried for obstructing justice if there is no underlying crime. Put another way, can you obstruct justice if there was theoretically nothing to obstruct? We decided to take a closer look.
We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime -- and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart.
Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. So the debate (sorry) will likely continue.What Barr wrote
What is obstruction of justice? It refers to "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice," including "proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees." The relevant type in the Trump example is likely "obstruction of criminal investigations."
Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant's knowledge of this proceeding; and the defendant's corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding.
Ultimately, Barr and Rosenstein determined that the three elements that are required to prove obstruction were not met.
May 02, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Special counsel Robert Mueller could be testifying before Congress as early as May 15, and there is no shortage of questions as Attorney General William Barr takes jabs at his handling of the Russia investigation. CNN's Jessica Schneider takes a closer look at their decades-long friendship, meanwhile Erin Burnett discusses with David Priess and David Rivkin. #CNN #News
Joseph Conrad , 2 days ago (edited)Bunchoffuckingbullshit , 2 days ago
everyone is a little too friendly ...press & government should not be friendly, law enforcement & government should not be friendly ...its not good, it leads to "friendly favors", when there should be justice & clarity
I worked in a State job for over 30 years. If you've got an issue of a legal nature, you sure as HELL better put it in writing, just to CYOA!!!
May 05, 2019 | www.zerohedge.comAuthored by Andrew McCarthy via NationalReview.com,
The attorney general's testimony was clearly accurate...
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway -- one person catches it and next thing you know there's an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.
So I give you: the Bill Barr perjury allegation.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But are we entitled to our own facts? Daniel Patrick Moynihan's bon mot says no, but Washington makes you wonder. Like when spleen-venting about the supposedly outrageous, unbelievable, disgraceful invocation of the word "spy" to describe episodes of government spying is instantly followed by a New York Times story about how the spying -- er, I mean, court-authorized electronic surveillance -- coupled with the tasking of spies -- er, undercover agents -- green-lighted by a foreign spy -- er, intelligence service -- was more widespread than previously known.
If I were a cynic, I'd think people were trying to get out in front of some embarrassing revelations on the horizon. I might even be tempted to speculate that progressives were trotting out their "Destroy Ken Starr" template for Barr deployment (which, I suppose, means that 20 years from now we'll be reading about what a straight-arrow Barr was compared to whomever Democrats are savaging at that point).
The claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous. That is why, at least initially, Democrats and their media echo chamber soft-pedaled it -- with such dishonorable exceptions as Mazie Horono, the Hawaii Democrat who, somehow, is a United States senator. It's tough to make the perjury argument without any false or even inaccurate statements -- though my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano did give it the old college try.
As recounted by The Hill , he twisted himself into a pretzel, observing -- try to follow this -- that the attorney general "probably misled" Congress and thus "he's got a problem" . . . although this purported dissembling didn't really seem to be, you know, an actual "lie" so . . . maybe it's not a problem after all. Or something.I assume that in his black-robe days, Judge Nap would have known better. When meritless perjury cases are thrown out of court, judges are often at pains to explain that the questioner who elicited the purportedly false testimony bears the burden of clarity; the terms of the question dictate the evaluation of the answer. In this instance, Barr's April 9 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee was true and accurate; if a misimpression set in after, it is because the relevant questioning by Representative Charlie Crist (D., Fla.) has been ignored or distorted.
Moreover, because perjury is a serious felony allegation, judges and legal analysts never rely on a general, selectively couched description of the testimony -- much less on the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's because-I-said-so refrain that Barr "lied to Congress" and "that's a crime." The testimony must be examined, with emphasis on the words that were used (the questions as well as the responses), and anything we can glean about the witness's demeanor (stingy? dodgy? forthcoming?).
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barr's March 24 letter described Mueller's report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latter's March 27 letter complaining about Barr's missive.
Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings . Do you know what they're referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don't. I think -- I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out , but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller's own language in doing that.
When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr's testimony is clearly accurate. And I don't mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque "depends on what the definition of is is" sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.
Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller's reaction to Barr's letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller's "team" to the Barr letter's description of "the report's findings." Regarding the March 24 letter's rendering of this bottom line -- namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question -- Barr said he did not know what Mueller's staff was complaining about.
Barr has known Mueller for nearly 30 years; when Mueller was the Criminal Division chief in the Bush 41 Justice Department, he reported to Barr, who was attorney general. It should come as no surprise, then, that Barr was not getting his information from Mueller's staff; he was getting it from Mueller directly . Nor should it come as any surprise that, before releasing his March 24 letter to the public, Barr gave Mueller an opportunity to review it; nor that Mueller declined that opportunity -- given that he knows Barr well, and knew Barr would not misrepresent the report (especially given that the report would soon be public).
Three days after Barr announced the report's conclusions, Mueller sent his letter, undoubtedly written by his staff. Mueller could simply have called Barr on the phone, as he has done a million times; but the staff's partisan Democrats wanted a letter, which makes for much better leak material. (The letter was, in fact, strategically leaked to the Washington Post Tuesday night, right before Barr's Wednesday morning Senate testimony.) The day after receiving Mueller's March 27 letter, Barr called Mueller and pointedly asked whether he was claiming that Barr's March 24 letter articulating Mueller's findings was inaccurate. Mueller responded that he was making no such claim -- he was, instead, irritated by the press coverage of Barr's letter. Mueller suggested the publication of additional information from the report, including the report's own executive summaries, to explain more about why he decided not to resolve the obstruction issue. But he did not claim Barr had misrepresented his findings. (See Barr's Senate testimony , starting at 39-minute mark.)
Again, Barr's contact was with Mueller, not Mueller's team. His exchanges with Mueller gave Barr no basis to know about any objection to his description of the report's findings -- from Mueller or anyone else. The fact that Mueller's staff was leaking like a sieve to the Times , the Washington Post , and NBC News does not mean they were sharing with the attorney general what the Times described as "their simmering frustrations."
That is what Barr said in answer to Crist's question about the report's findings. But to avoid the misimpression that he was parsing words deceptively, Barr volunteered his perception that Mueller's staff wanted more information from the report to be publicized. That was consistent with what can be inferred from Barr's phone call with Mueller on March 28. And it was not news: Crist's questions were based on the aforementioned press accounts of leaks from Mueller's staffers. They were irked at the bad press they were receiving over Mueller's abdication on the question whether there was a prosecutable obstruction case, and they had groused that there was much more to their report than Barr's letter conveyed. Of course, Barr never disputed this; as he repeatedly explained, he undertook to render the conclusions, not summarize the entire 448-page report.
Barr decided that his way of making disclosure -- the findings followed three weeks later by the full report -- was superior to the proposal of Mueller's staff that their own summaries be released. You can disagree with Barr on that, but that's not grounds for a perjury claim. And it raises a point Barr made in his Senate testimony: The regulations do not require any disclosure of the special counsel's report (which is supposed to be a confidential Justice Department document, as is typical of Justice Department deliberations over whether to charge or decline to charge). The decision of what, if anything, to disclose, and how that should be done, is exclusively the attorney general's, not the special counsel's. Mueller's job was to make a prosecutorial judgment -- to charge or decline to charge obstruction. Mueller failed to do that. Since Mueller didn't do his own job, isn't it a bit presumptuous of his staff (through press leaks) to tell Barr how to do his?
Could what happened here be more obvious?
Mueller received fawning press for two years on the expectation that he would slay Trump. Then, on March 24, Democrats and the media learned not only that there was no collusion case (which was no surprise) but that Mueller had been derelict, failing to render a judgment on the only question he was arguably needed to resolve: Was there enough evidence to charge obstruction? Journalists proceeded to turn on their erstwhile hero. This sent him reeling, and it brought to full boil the anger of Mueller staffers, who wanted to charge Trump with obstruction based on the creative (i.e., wayward) theory they had been pursuing -- namely, that a president can be indicted for obstruction based on the exercise of his constitutional prerogatives if prosecutors (including prosecutors who are active supporters of the president's political opposition) decide he had corrupt intent. The staffers put their pique in a letter that could be leaked, and Mueller was sufficiently irked by the bad press that he signed it. And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for The Big Lie that Barr lied, calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically broadcast these declarations, no one will notice that they never actually refer to the transcript of what they claim is the false testimony.
Democrats are unnerved. Attorney General Barr is pursuing an inquiry into the Obama administration's decision to conduct a foreign counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The time is now, they figure, to reprise the Ken Starr treatment: the ad hominem withering of an accomplished, highly capable official -- in this instance, one who is daring to press questions that would have been answered two years ago if an incumbent Republican administration had spied on -- er, monitored -- a Democratic presidential campaign.
Dickweed Wang , 13 minutes ago linkCman5000 , 48 minutes ago link
Mueller responded that he was making no such claim -- he was, instead, irritated by the press coverage of Barr's letter.
Then why the **** didn't the guy come right out and say that? You know why? Cause he's a chicken **** weasel, that's why.StarGate , 31 minutes ago link
Mueller gave himself and his team an out. He goes before Congress May 15th it's going to be an utter disaster for Dems that day. The EndReal Estate Guru , 19 minutes ago link
Don't know. Mueller is a black hat; on the Dem/ Globalist team - a fixer.
His report shows they were not investigating these last 2 years but rather composing the "Insurance Plan".
Mueller smoked up the origins of the Russian collusion - failing to clarify the Misfud story that FBI claimed was the foundation of the investigation. He did not investigate the Steele Dossier or clean up the FISA abuse issue. His team failed again to examine the DNC server and rather just parroted the Crowdstrike propaganda.
The Mueller team used the fake leaked News stories as a substitute for investigating the facts.rwe2late , 50 minutes ago link
... ... ...
"Don't know. Mueller is a black hat; on the Dem/ Globalist team - a fixer.
His report shows they were not investigating these last 2 years but rather composing the "Insurance Plan".
Mueller smoked up the origins of the Russian collusion - failing to clarify the Misfud story that FBI claimed was the foundation of the investigation. He did not investigate the Steele Dossier or clean up the FISA abuse issue. His team failed again to examine the DNC server and rather just parroted the Crowdstrike propaganda.
The Mueller team used the fake leaked News stories as a substitute for investigating the facts."
... ... ...
Rod Rosenstein is toast!! .....another one bites the dust!
Rosenstein resigns yesterday...AG Barr testifies in front of the Senate tomorrow....it is all over for the dems folks! Then comes the Comey report and his indictment within a week, then the FISA declass, then the IG Report which will be MASSIVE!!!, then the Huber Report with his 720 prosecutors working on the 90,000 indictments that will become unsealed!
... ... ...
TRUMP confirms all of this on Hannity right here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-r0Y9bLwQ
... ... ...
Here is the lineup of what happened by the traitors in the coup
- - Obama led everything from the White House. He spied on everyone
- - Hillary Clinton was the financier through her fake foundation
- - Brennan was the instigator
- - Clapper and Comey were the leakers
- - Christopher Steele and Glen Simpson were facilitators who created it all and fabricated the document with the Russians
- - Comey and McCabe and Strozk and Page were driving the engine of this attempted coup on Trump
- ... ... ...
- -The democrats were involved in all of this...from Schiff to the rest of them in Congress.
- ... ... ...
... ... ...
These people are going to hang. The coup has been stopped. The deep state is surrounded. OUR BORDER IS BEING MANNED WITH OUR MILITARY EVEN AS YOU READ THIS! Trump is building the Wall! The entire thing is going to be seen on public TV this summer. Trump said you will see:
The FISA declass...which will take down the House! That means Obama, Hillary, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, Biden, all of the perps who you already know in the FBI, Brennan , Clapper, McCabe, Mueller, the democrats, Waters, Schiff, Nadler, Swalowswell, Nadler, Pelosi, the lousy lying MSM...all of them! And lots more!
Trump said he is going to declass everything! The FISA, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!!!
Everything! Trump is going after them, and they are surrounded. No place to hide, Hillary! No place to hide, Obama and all of your creeps. You are going to jail, or the hanging tree. One way or another, you are done!
OIG Report Horrowitz.
*HUGE COMEY REPORT COMING OUT IN TWO WEEKS! INDICTMENTS COMING!!- Prosecutor Joe Digenova! Leaking classified information to the press, lying to the FISA COURT!!
... ... ...
- The FISA court Judges have just turned over the documents showing that they were lied to by Comey, Rosenstein, etc.
- New Spygate Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The 'Scandal-Free' Obama White House
- Trump is closing every avenue of escape, money laundering, pedo stuff, criminal CEO's, politicians, etc.
- Trump has ALL of Hillary's emails, including those that Obama had
- Trump will declass 911, JFK, aliens, who Obama really is, his citizenship status of the country he was born in, everything!
- Trump has Wikileaks sources....; )) ...soon he will have Assange
- Trump has all of their communications....; )) ALL OF THEM!
- Obama had thousand of Hillary's emails (49,000) and ran the entire op from his office in the White House
Hillary-"if Trump gets in we will all hang!", as she screamed at everybody on election night!
... ... ...
*Bill Maher just turned on Adam Schiff....says "he is stalking Trump!"...
*Washington Times reporter Bob Woodward says "the Steele Dossier is a bunch of garbage!"
... ... ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn8E3ZkrnY4rwe2late , 33 minutes ago link
Trump is put on the defensive and hobbled.
Mueller found he couldn't prove Trump colluded.
But the claim is still made that Trump could have colluded and might in the future.
So whenever Trump does anything, he will be "expected" to prove he wasn't unduly influenced.
Rather impossible, and even more so on issues where US & Russia & others have common interests.
(Even those who oppose Trump and the MIC will be accused of being Putin's stooges.
Welcome to renewed paranoid Cold War red-baiting)StarGate , 58 minutes ago link
unjust, unfair, unreasonable, hypocritical, and diversionary accusations but
putting Trump on the "defensive" nonetheless ever since inauguration,
and continuing so long as Trump is compelled to respond to the
collusion-obstruction-Russophobiarwe2late , 1 hour ago link
Easy to surmise the goal of the Mueller SC was to smear the Prez with shadow Russian accusations thru the 2018 elections, then submit a report with obstruction scenarios that the Dem House could use to impeach.
Mueller's team was angry that AG Barr outfoxed them and concluded 'NO Obstruction' based upon the Law.
The Dem House is now stuck. Barr deflated their impeachment plan.
All they have left is: rant, pant and hyperventilate for the cameras.StarGate , 49 minutes ago link
I think the allegation made against Barr will be basically that he "lied' by omission .
According to the Trump-deranged Russophobes,
Barr could have made a case for impeachment if he had used the redacted
parts of the report instead of hiding them (as Mueller's letter is deceptively used to claim),
and if Barr had not been "biased" in favor of Trump.
The allegation is a fabrication of course, when even the redacted parts were available to senior committee members.
However, from a PR point of view, thanks to the limited reasoning power of many citizens,
Trump/Barr is supposedly expected to "disprove" hypothetical negatives to the public
[i.e. that redacted non-public parts of the report could not have been used toward impeachment,
that Barr was not "biased",
and that nothing in the published report could properly be used by Congress to further "investigate" toward impeachment when anything could be used by Congress as "suspicious" warranting further "investigation".]
All of the allegations comprise just another "pack of lies", fake issues,
a smokescreen diversion away from the brazen theft.
Unfortunately, the paranoia and prejudices will continue to be manipulated to serve
the neoCON-MIC and neoLiberal financial agendas.StarGate , 1 hour ago link
Disagree that Kamala painted a tight corner. She is all about histrionics, dramatic accusations to appear "tough". She is the sado-masochistic Senator inquisitor.
If you examine her questions they are usually irrelevant. As here. The point of the SC was to examine the evidence, not the AG. The AG reviews the report presented to determine if it is sufficiently salient.
AG Barr is a careful thinker. Kamala is a 'gotcha' inquisitor. AG Barr was looking at the trap Kamala was setting and figuring out how not to step into it while also answering direct.
Note Kamala cuts off her victims' answer whenever they avoid her traps.navy62802 , 1 hour ago link
Obviously the Democrats and their broadcast News Mafia conspire together on what dirty trick to promote next.
They are running out of options.
Their 2 front runners for the Prez are potential stroke material near octogenarians. Their congressional stars are radical jihadists.
And they've used the "Impeach" word so often, no one is listening.chubbar , 1 hour ago link
These are the actions of people who are deathly afraid of the investigations AG Barr is conducting. Probably because those investigations threaten to catch multiple high-ranking politicians and other government officials in a treasonous campaign to destroy the elected president.
EDIT: In fact some of the very people mounting this anti-Barr campaign might even be implicated in the illegal scheme to conspire with multiple foreign governments against the elected president.
Judge Nap sure did a 180 on his loyalties didn't he? He used to be a Trump supporter. Now he goes out of his way to **** on him and twist facts to make it look like Trump is doing something nefarious. FOX is in the process of destroying itself. You'll know it's complete when they fire Hannity and Tucker. The Murdoch sons suck ***!
May 05, 2019 | www.vanityfair.com
"So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?" Feinstein asked.
"We felt that in that episode the government would not be able to establish obstruction," Barr replied. "If you look at that episode . . . the instruction said 'Go to [ Rod ] Rosenstein, raise the issue of conflict of interest and Mueller has to go because of this conflict of interest.' So there's not question that whatever instruction was given to McGahn had to to do with conflict of interest . . . To be obstruction of justice the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding. McGahn had already given his evidence and I think it would be plausible that the purpose of McGahn memorializing what the president was asking was to make the record that the president never directed him to fire. And there is a distinction between saying to someone, 'go fire him, go fire Mueller' and saying 'have him removed based on conflict. '"
At this point, Feinstein, speaking for all of us, asked, "And what would that conflict be?"
To which Barr responded, "The difference between them is that if you remove someone for conflict of interest, another person would be presumably . . . appointed," failing to acknowledge that had McGahn complied with Trump's request, the president would have likely continued to find "conflicts of interest" with every new special counsel.
Maybe Barr, the nation's top law-enforcement official, just isn't qualified to judge! "I'm not in the business of determining when lies are told to the American people," he told Senator Richard Blumenthal at another point in the hearing. "I'm in the business of determining when a crime has been committed." And if the lie is the crime? Look, we're splitting hairs.
Elsewhere in the hearing, Barr:
- Claimed Trump's attempt to get McGahn to remove Mueller wasn't corrupt ;
- Said Trump's dislike of the investigation in general was a legitimate reason to try to fire Mueller ;
- Said that "[Mueller's] work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. At that point, it was my baby;"
- And admitted that neither he nor Rosenstein reviewed all of the evidence before making his conclusion not to charge Trump !
May 05, 2019 | www.unz.com
Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC) writes:
"I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind. Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy, arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country:
His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me).
I don't know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I would have followed up with "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?"
"The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg's remark. He seemed to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It might be interesting to compare Trump's contacts with the Russians during the campaign with his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater significance. Certainly, Trump's acts as President would seem to indicate he's more Netanyahu's puppet than Putin's: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed doing in the Golan Heights!
"P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation."
Rational , says: May 1, 2019 at 5:02 pm GMTTHE WHOLE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A SCAM.Rational , says: May 1, 2019 at 8:51 pm GMT
The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats, Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called contacts with Russians.
They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens before the election, so it is illegal.
What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?
They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was allegedly broken itself is illegal.
It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”
This law is a joke, because Trump never “negotiated” with any foreign govt. on behalf of the USA, and Russia is not having a dispute with the USA.
Most importantly, the Logan Act is unconstitutional.
That is why nobody has been prosecuted under it–for decades!
So any American who posts on rt.com or on an Iranian website suggesting peace is technically violating the Logan Act.
Any newspapers that publishes articles about Iran or Russia or Syria and suggesting peace or war is technically violating the Logan Act.
So why are all they not in jail?
Because the Logan Act is unconstitutional and it violates the first amendment.
Go, say, “I will talk to the Russian govt. all I want and promote world peace.”
Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.ADDENDUM: NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER THE LOGAN ACT.Sin City Milla , says: May 2, 2019 at 5:11 am GMT
This is stated in the wikipedia article I put the link for above.
In fact, the wikipedia article also talks about its unconstitutionality.@Rational
Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.
While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been ‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.
One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being ‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”
The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say.
May 03, 2019 | www.realclearpolitics.com
"Once the Mueller report is put to bed, and it will be soon, this committee is going to look long and hard at how all of this started," Graham said. "We're going to look at the FISA warrant process. Did Russia provide Christopher Steele the information about Trump, that turned out to be garbage, that was used to get a warrant on an American citizen and if so, how did the system fail? Was there a real effort between Papadopoulos and anybody in Russia to use the Clinton e-mails stolen by the Russians, or is that thought planted in his mind? I don't know, but we're going to look."
May 03, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Cheap Chinese Crap , 16 minutes ago linkReal Estate Guru , 18 minutes ago link
There's a very easy way to pin this down. Since Halper introduced her as his "assistant", he should have no problem telling everybody where she is now.
If he is unable to produce her or show any proof that she was his own assistant-- he's a spy. period.Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 minute ago link
X-22 Report just out
Rod Rosenstein is toast!! .....another one bites the dust!
Rosenstein resigns yesterday...
... ... ..
TRUMP confirms all of this on Hannity right here...
Q said tonight that this is the order of the tsunami of documents/testimony coming out in the next few days/weeks:
- AG BARR testifies in front of Congress on MAY 1,2
- The Comey Investigation is coming out in less than 14 days...indictments are coming
- The FISA declass comes out after that in May. This will take down Obama and everyone else
- The Horrowitz IG Report comes out right after that....it will be devastating to all the players in this mess
... ... ...
Here is the lineup of what happened by the traitors in the coup
- - Obama led everything from the White House. He spied on everyone
- - Hillary Clinton was the financier through her fake foundation
- - Brennan was the instigator
- - Clapper and Comey were the leakers
- - Christopher Steele and Glen Simpson were facilitators who created it all and fabricated the document with the Russians
- - Comey and McCabe and Strozk and Page were driving the engine of this attempted coup on Trump
... ... ...
-The democrats were involved in all of this...from Schiff to the rest of them in Congress.
The FISA declass coming out Monday?...
Hannity, Tucker, and Laura Ingrahm were all out on Friday. Something BIG is up, folks!!!
Obama, Biden, and Hillary are TOAST!! OBAMA RAN THE WHOLE SHOW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!
"IT'S HANGIN' TIME!!"
" New Spygate Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The 'Scandal-Free' Obama White House!!"
ObamaGate: No Misdemeanors, Only High Crimes
Sens. Charles Grassley & Ron Johnson Release Letter to Attorney General William Barr, Demand Details About Investigation Into Obama's Illegal Spying on Trump Campaign [FULL LETTER]
"Those that yell the loudest are the ones going down" -Q
: Schiff, Waters, BRENNAN , Comey, Hillery, etc!!
Here it is folks, for those who have not seen it...the full interview of Trump last night where Trump himself lays it all out. "When do birds sing? Springtime!" - Q
That means right now!!
These people are going to hang. The coup has been stopped. The deep state is surrounded. OUR BORDER IS BEING MANNED WITH OUR MILITARY EVEN AS YOU READ THIS! Trump is building the Wall! The entire thing is going to be seen on public TV this summer. Trump said you will see:
The FISA declass...which will take down the House! That means Obama, Hillary, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, Biden, all of the perps who you already know in the FBI, Brennan , Clapper, McCabe, Mueller, the democrats, Waters, Schiff, Nadler, Swalowswell, Nadler, Pelosi, the lousy lying MSM...all of them! And lots more!
Trump said he is going to declass everything! The FISA, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!!!
Everything! Trump is going after them, and they are surrounded. No place to hide, Hillary! No place to hide, Obama and all of your creeps. You are going to jail, or the hanging tree. One way or another, you are done!
OIG Report Horrowitz.
*HUGE COMEY REPORT COMING OUT IN TWO WEEKS! INDICTMENTS COMING!!- Prosecutor Joe Digenova! Leaking classified information to the press, lying to the FISA COURT!!
Gang of 8 documents
Documents and testimony from 53 closed door investigations.
Senate Intel investigations
House Intel investigations
The AG Barr report
Huber's leaking report and the 90,000 sealed indictments
3 large prison barges are going back and forth from New York to Gitmo... WHY?
Barr's testimony on March 1, 2 that will be a bombshell
Q was right all along!
The FISA court Judges have just turned over the documents showing that they were lied to by Comey, Rosenstein, etc.
New Spygate Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The 'Scandal-Free' Obama White House
Trump is closing every avenue of escape, money laundering, pedo stuff, criminal CEO's, politicians, etc.
Trump has ALL of Hillary's emails, including those that Obama had
Trump will declass 911, JFK, aliens, who Obama really is, his citizenship status of the country he was born in, everything!
Trump has Wikileaks sources....; )) ...soon he will have Assange
Trump has all of their communications....; )) ALL OF THEM!
Obama had thousand of Hillary's emails (49,000) and ran the entire op from his office in the White House
Hillary-"if Trump gets in we will all hang!", as she screamed at everybody on election night!
Trump has the NSA and the other 17 intel orgs that nobody knows about that have everything.... ; )))
Trump has it all! Trump also has clawed back $Trillions of stolen funds they took
The dems will be retiring en masse soon...Trump will take back the House in 2020
Court TV is coming back this summer. Hillary wanted that. Now you will be watching HER being indicted!
The libtard morons are going to go berserk folks! The show is beginning officially as of last night. There is no place to hide for them. The MSM is in full meltdown and the perps are panicking all over the planet!
*Bill Maher just turned on Adam Schiff....says "he is stalking Trump!"...
*Washington Times reporter Bob Woodward says "the Steele Dossier is a bunch of garbage!"
... ... ...LEEPERMAX , 21 minutes ago link
Real Estate Guru: Great compilation of really bad news for the globalist traitors who sold the US out to the Chicoms and really good news for the Patriots!
But beware cornered and desperate enemies
They are the most vicious and unpredictable
Great segment today on Infowars about being ready for war https://www.infowars.com/watch/?video=5ccb7b6ef9b2ae001264aedb
The war on Zero Hedge against the Chicom trolls will soon go to the next level On a gut level the Steverino999's , his other screen names and the reset of the trolls know that when Patriots fully regain control of the US government it won't be pretty for them
Yes, Real Estate Guru and other fellow Patriots it is wonderful to see the battle turning for liberty and against globalist chicom tyranny ( and their henchmen) but Please do not be complacent there is much yet to be done before these sewer rats are flushed away from body politic of the US
Stand up for liberty!
JOHN BRENNAN'S CIA WAS BEHIND EVERY MOVE IN THIS ATTEMPTED COUP
(and everyone will soon know it)
May 01, 2019 | www.realclearpolitics.com
It is about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama administration for more than four years before the 2016 election allowed four contractors working for the FBI to illegally surveil American citizens -- illegally. The FISA court has already found that. There is the Horowitz report coming out in May or possibly early June. There's another report that everyone has forgotten about involving James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and there are going to be criminal referrals in it.
The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it...
There's a hero in this story and it is not a lawyer. There is a hero. His name is Admiral Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency.
He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already.
May 01, 2019 | www.thenation.com
Special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III's two-volume " Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election " is not an easy read -- not unlike those manuals that come boxed with "easy to assemble" multipart children's toys on Christmas Eve. Nonetheless, considering the exceedingly damaging effects Russiagate has had on America at home and abroad for nearly three years, the report will long be studied for what it reveals and does not reveal, what it includes and does not include.
Because of my own special interest in Russia, I read carefully the first volume, which focuses on that country's purported role in the scandal. I came away with as many questions about the report as about the role of Moscow and that of candidate and then President Donald Trump. To note a few:
- Mueller begins, on Page 1, with this assertion: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." Maybe so, but Mueller, who is not averse to editorializing and contextualizing elsewhere in the report, gives readers no historical background or context for this large generalization.
In particular, was the interference -- or "meddling," as media accounts characterize it -- more or less "sweeping and systematic" than was Washington's military intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918 or its very intrusive campaign to re-elect Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996 -- or, on the other side of the ledger, the role of the Soviet-backed American Communist Party in US politics in the 20th century? That is, what warranted a special investigation of this episode in a century of mutual American-Russian interference in the other's politics? Put somewhat differently: Readers might wonder if, had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, there even would have been a Russiagate and Mueller investigation.
- It has occasionally been suggested that Russiagate was originated by high-level US officials who disliked candidate Trump's pledge to "cooperate with Russia." This suspicion remains unproven, but throughout, Mueller repeatedly attributes to Trump campaign members and Russians who interacted in 2016, potentially in sinister or even criminal ways, a desire for "improved U.S.-Russian relations," for "bringing the end of the new Cold War," for a "new beginning with Russia."
Even Russian President Vladimir Putin is reported to have wanted "reconciliation between the United States and Russia." (See, for example, pp. 5, 98, 105, 124, 157.) The result is, of course, to discredit America's once-mainstream advocacy of détente. Mueller even brands American pro-détente views -- as Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan held in the 20th century -- as "pro-Russia foreign policy positions" (p. 102). Does this mean that Americans who hold pro-détente views today, as I and quite a few others do, are to be investigated for their "contacts" with Russians in pursuit of better relations? Mueller seems to say nothing to offset this implication, which has already adversely affected a few Americans mentioned and not mentioned in his report.
- As reflected in the text and footnotes, Mueller relies heavily on reports by US intelligence agencies , but without treating the recorded misdeeds of those agencies, particularly the CIA under John Brennan , in promoting the Russiagate saga. He also relies heavily on contemporary media accounts of Russiagate as it unfolded, but without taking into account their journalistic malpractices, as abundantly documented by Matt Taibbi , who equates the malpractice with news reports leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
- Nor does Mueller consider alternative scenarios and explanations, as any good historical or judicial investigation must do. For example, he accepts uncritically the Clinton/Democratic National Committee allegation that Russian agents hacked and disseminated their emails in 2016. Again, maybe so, but why did he not do his own forensic examination or even mention the alternative finding by VIPS that they were stolen and leaked by an insider? Why did he not question Julian Assange, who claimed to know how and through whom the emails reached WikiLeaks? And how to explain Mueller's minimal interest in the shadowy professor Joseph Mifsud, who helped entrap George Papadopoulos in London?
Mueller reports that Mifsud "had connections to Russia" (p. 5), although a simple Google search suggests that Mifsud was indeed an "agent" but not a Russian one, as widely alleged in media accounts.
- Though he may do so in the second volume of the report, Mueller oddly does not focus in the first volume on the Steele dossier, where it surely belongs as a foundational Russiagate document and whose anti-Trump "information" is now widely acknowledged to have been "salacious and unverified." At one point, however, Mueller delivers a telling report: "Trump would not pay for opposition research" (p. 61). Can this be anything other than a damning, if oblique, judgment on the Clinton campaign, which is known to have paid for the Steele dossier?
- Toward the end of the first volume (pp. 144, 146), Mueller produces a truly stunning revelation, though he seems unaware of it. After the 2016 US presidential election, the Kremlin "appeared not to have preexisting contacts with senior officials around the President-Elect." Even more, "Putin spoke of the difficulty faced by the Russian government in getting in touch with the incoming Trump Administration . Putin indicated that he did not know with whom formally to speak and generally did not know the people around the President-Elect."
So much for all the shameful Russiagate allegations of Trump-Putin collusion, conspiracy, even treason. Surely it means the United States needs another, different investigation, one into the actual origins and meaning of this fraudulent, corrosive, exceedingly dangerous, and still unending American political scandal.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
May 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Will Chamberlain via HumanEvents.com,
In June 2018, Bill Barr, then in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, wrote a detailed legal memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This memo came to light in December, when Barr was nominated for Attorney General.
Reading Barr's June 2018 memo alongside the last twenty pages of the Mueller Report is a curious experience.
Together, they read like dueling legal briefs on the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) ; the type of material one would expect to see from adversarial appellate litigators.
So-why did Robert Mueller dedicate 20 pages of his report to a seemingly obscure question of statutory interpretation? Why did Bill Barr write a detailed legal memorandum to Rod Rosenstein about that very same statute?
And how, exactly, did Bill Barr know that that § 1512(c)(2) was central to Mueller's obstruction theory – in June 2018, when he was still in private practice at Kirkland?
After some consideration, I arrived at a theory that I believe answers these three questions, and others as well. For example – why was AG Jeff Sessions asked for his resignation the day after the midterms? Why was Bill Barr the only name ever seriously floated for AG? And is it merely a coincidence that six weeks after Barr's confirmation, the Mueller probe came to an end?
This is a story about a legal chess match played for the highest stakes imaginable: Trump's Presidency – and whether it would be under the cloud of an endless special counsel investigation – hinged on the result.
John Dowd, Ty Cobb, Jay Sekulow, and the rest of President Trump's personal legal team were on one side. Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, and the Special Counsel's office were on the other.
The dispute was a year-long struggle over the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).
No judge ever ruled on who was right about the meaning of this obstruction statute. No formal decision was ever rendered.
All the same, Trump's legal team prevailed on February 14, 2019.
That's the day William Pelham Barr was confirmed as United States Attorney General.
So why, exactly, was the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) so contested?
Let's start by looking the statute, excerpted here:
(c) Whoever corruptly --
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added).
Why was this so important to Mueller?
In hindsight, however, it's clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.
Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over...
Read the full story here...
May 01, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Why the cryptic wording on the Steele Dossier? Why wasn't Trump given an opportunity to defend himself in court? • May 1, 2019
CreativeCommonsFlickr/RyanReilly and ActionSportsPhotography/Shutterstock You know that movie with Bruce Willis and the kid who says "I see dead people"? In the end, it turns out everyone is already dead. Now imagine there are people who don't believe that. They insist the story ends some other way. Spoiler alert: the Mueller Report ends with no collusion. No one is going to prosecute anyone for obstruction. That stuff is all dead. We all saw the same movie.
Yet there seem to still be questions from those who don't get it. And while it's doubtful that the stoic Robert Mueller will ever write a tell-all book, or sit next to Seth Meyers and Trevor Noah to dish, he may be called in front of Congress. If he is, here's some of what he should be asked.
1) You didn't charge President Donald Trump with "collusion," obstruction, or any other new crime. Tell us why. If the answer is "the evidence did not support it," please say so.
2) Your Report did not refer any crimes to Congress, the SDNY, or anyone else. Again, tell us why. If the answer is "the evidence did not support it," please say so again.
3) Despite making no specific referrals, the Report does state, "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of the office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." Why did you include such a restating of a known fact? Many have read that line to mean you could not indict a sitting president and so you wanted to leave a clue to Congress. Yet you could have just spelled it out -- "this is beyond my and the attorney general's constitutional roles and must/can only be resolved by Congress." Why didn't you?
4) Similarly, many believe they see clues (a footnote looms as the grassy knoll of your work) that the only reason you did not indict Trump was because of Department of Justice and Office of Legal Counsel guidance against indicting a sitting president. Absent that, would you have indicted? If so, why didn't you say so unambiguously and trigger what would be the obvious next steps?
5) When did you conclude there was no collusion, conspiracy, or coordination between Trump and the Russians such that you would make no indictments? You must have closed at least some of the subplots -- the Trump Tower meeting, the Moscow Hotel project -- months ago. Did you consider announcing key findings as they occurred? You were clearly aware that there was inaccurate reporting, damaging to the public trust. Yet you allowed that to happen. Why?
6) But before you answer that question, answer this one. You made a pre-Report public statement saying Buzzfeed's story that claimed Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress was false. You restated that in the Report, where you also mentioned that you privately told Jeff Sessions' lawyer in March 2018 that Sessions would not be charged. Since your work confirmed that nearly all bombshell reporting on Russiagate was wrong (Cohen was never in Prague, nothing criminal happened in the Seychelles, and so on), why was it only that single instance that caused you to speak out publicly? And as with Sessions, did you privately inform any others prior to the release of the Report that they would not be charged? What standard did you apply to those decisions?
7) A cardinal rule for prosecutors is to not publicize negative information that does not lead them to indict someone -- "the decision does the talking." James Comey was criticized for doing this to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Yet most of your Report's Volume II is just that, descriptions of actions by Trump that contain elements of obstruction but that you ultimately did not charge. Why did you include this information so prominently? Some say it was because you wanted to draw a "road map" for impeachment. Why didn't you just say that? You had no reason to speak in riddles.
8) There is a lot of lying documented in the Report. But you seemed to only charge people with perjury (traps) early in your investigation. Was that aimed more at pressuring them to "flip" than at justice per se? Is one of the reasons several of the people in the Report who lied did not get charged with perjury later in the investigation because by then you knew they had nothing to flip on?
9) In regard to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where derogatory information on Hillary Clinton was offered (but never given), you declined prosecution. You cited in part questions over whether such information constituted the necessary "thing of value" that would have to exist, inter alia , to make its proffering a campaign finance violation. You don't answer the question in the Report, but you do believe information could be a "thing of value" (the thing of value must exceed $2,000 for a misdemeanor and $25,000 for a felony). What about withholding information? Could someone saying they would not offer information publicly be a "thing of value" and thus potentially part of a campaign finance law violation? Of course I'm talking about Stormy Daniels, who received money not to offer information. Would you make the claim that silence itself, non-information, is a "thing" of value?
10) You spend the entire first half of your Report, Volume I, explaining that "the Russians" sought to manipulate our 2016 election via social media and by hacking the Democratic National Committee. Though there is a lot of redacted material, at no point in the clear text is there information on whether the Russians actually did influence the election. Even trying was a crime, but given the importance of all this (some still claim the president is illegitimate) and the potential impact on future elections, did you look into the actual effects of Russian meddling? If not, why not?
11) Everything the Russians did, according to Volume I, they did on Obama's watch. Did you investigate anyone in the Obama administration in regard to Russian meddling? Did you look at what they did, what was missed, whether it could have been stopped, and how the response was formed? Given that Trump's actions towards Russia followed on steps Obama took, this seems relevant. Did you look? If not, why not?
12) Some of the information gathered about Michael Flynn was picked up inadvertently under existing surveillance of the Russian ambassador. As an American, Flynn's name would have been routinely masked in the reporting on those intercepts in order to protect his privacy. The number of people with access to those intercepts is small, and the number inside the Obama White House with the authority to unmask names is even smaller. Yet details were leaked to the press and ended Flynn's career. Given that the leak may have exposed U.S. intelligence methods, that it had to have been done at a very high level inside the Obama White House, and that the leak violated Flynn's constitutional rights, did you investigate? If not, why not?
13) The New York Times wrote that "some of the most sensational claims in the [Steele] dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Your report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out." Given the central role the Steele Dossier played in your work, and certainly in the investigation that commenced as Crossfire Hurricane in summer 2016, why did you not include any overall assessment of why so much did not check out inside such a key document?
14) Prosecutors do not issue certificates of exoneration. The job is to charge or drop a case. That's what constitutes exoneration in any practical sense. Yet you have as your final line that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Why did you include that, and so prominently?
15) You also wrote, "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." You argue elsewhere in the Report that because Trump is a sitting president, he cannot be indicted, so therefore it would be unjust to accuse him of something he could not go to court and defend himself over. But didn't you do just that? Why did you leave the taint of guilt without giving Trump the means of defending himself in court? You must have understood that such wording would be raw meat to Democrats, and would force Trump to defend himself not in a court with legal protections, but in an often hostile media. Was that your intention?
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.
Luke April 30, 2019 at 11:02 pmMy guess is that he didn't go to the wall with this gig because he knew that his appointment was illegal to start with. He did just enough to keep himself on the beat for 2 years.Carolinatarheel , says: May 1, 2019 at 8:37 am
To trigger the appointment of a special counsel, federal regulations require the Justice Department to identify the crimes that warrant investigation and prosecution -- crimes that the Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate in the normal course; crimes that become the parameters of the special counsel's jurisdiction.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/muellers-investigation-flouts-justice-department-standards/Mueller's good friend Comey deliberately leaked government information to someone outside the Department of Justice in order to get revenge for being fired and to prompt a Special Counsel. Comey knew his friend Mueller would be appointed!Connecticut Farmer , says: May 1, 2019 at 10:02 am
Mueller spent over two years and Thirty Million Dollars of taxpayers money trying to create a crime to undermine President Trump!
Mueller simply cannot be trusted and should be thoroughly investigated!
America First!"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."Egypt Steve , says: May 1, 2019 at 10:04 am
I've heard several legal experts opine that the above was a gratuitous and vexatious "coda", if you will, which served only to illustrate Mueller's sore loser attitude.
In the meantime the question of who these "Russians" were who allegedly tried to subvert the election process remains blissfully unanswered. And it says here that we probably never will find out the answer either.Mueller didn't make a "referral to Congress" because the statue under which he operated called for him to make a confidential report to the AG, you dope. Congress doesn't need a "referral" to take action. They now have the evidence on the record, or most of it. What else would a referral constitute anyway, other than the literal words "I refer to the following facts to Congress for their consideration"?art , says: May 1, 2019 at 10:51 amIf anyone in the world knew or should have been able to find obstruction it was Mueller who after two years knew Trump better than both his accountant and proctologist, If Mueller could or did not find obstruction or collusion it was not there if it was there he would have so said. What Mueller did was to leave landmines and boobytraps and sully Trumps man. Mueller says that he could not find incriminating evidence because he could not find it but he therefore thinks it existed, as every first year law student knows "If you don't have the evidence then you can't prove your criminal case".Sid Finster , says: May 1, 2019 at 12:58 pm
The burden is on the prosecutor to prove the case the prosecutor does not exonhorate or "clear" a target nor does the prosecutor release information that does not reach an indictment, this is important to all people who could otherwise be harmed by such a release.It's funny as all get out (TAC doesn't like it when I swear) watching Russiagate cultists keep pushing their conspiracy theory, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that there is nothing there.ROBERT DALTON , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:07 pm
But they cannot let it go, cannot admit that they were duped, and by many of the same crew who sold us the "Iraq is chock a block with WMDs", the "Assad gassed his own people ZOMG!" and the "Libyan rape rooms" lies.
The *really* funny and ironic part is that if they want evidence that Trump is working on behalf of foreign governments, the cultists need look no further than Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It's as if Melania were trying to catch Donald cheating. To prove it, she comes up with elaborate and absurd conspiracy theories involving body doubles, fake credit card receipts and a supposed secret Twitter code that Donald uses to communicate with his alleged lover.
While she's doing all that, and ignoring all the evidence that obliterates her theory, Mistress Bibi and Mistress Salman have the chains and whips and bondage gear on full display as they make Donald perform the most obscene and humiliating sexual services, right in front of Melania and everyone else, and with video footage to boot.
Of course, the rest of Team D and Team R would very much like to take Trump's place as Mistress Salman's slaveboi, so they pretend not to notice any of that.The author's question was "Why did you leave the taint of guilt without giving Trump the means of defending himself in court?"Patricus , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Headlines are not written by the authors of the articles but are prepared by people who have a focus fitting an attention getting statement into a limited amount of space.
BTW, Connecticut Farmer nailed it – no prosecutor exonerates anyone. They either act or they don't and Mueller was unethical in making such an absurd statementIn American law potential defendants are not exonerated. There is a presumption of innocence to start. They are found guilty or not guilty in court or, a prosecutor declines to prosecute because he thinks there is insufficient evidence.Sid Finster , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Let Congress initiate impeachment proceedings. A crime isn't necessary, only a majority in Congress. Removing him from office is unlikely. They will guarantee Trump a second term.
Watching these hysterical haters of Trump is like watching lunatics descend into madness. Before long their ravings will include insidious plots by Free Masons, International Jews and the Trilateral commission.While we're playing these stupid games, I got some questions for Mueller to answer, yo.DENNIS ZICKERMAN , says: May 1, 2019 at 3:45 pm
1. When are you going to examine the DNC's servers?
2. Why did you rely solely upon the analysis produced by the DNC's hired consultants for the conclusion the DNC servers were hacked by Russians?
3. When are you planning to question Assange or Craig Murray? Did you not know their whereabouts for the last two years, or were you choosing only that evidence that fit your preordained conclusion, like you did when you testified before Congress about Iraqi WMDs?Enjoyed all the comments. The one howler that stands out in all this is Mr. Van Buren's notion that Trump was denied the opportunity to defend himself. No competent lawyer would ever put Trump on the stand in any trial, but particularly one in which he was the accused. Meanwhile, three cheers for Mr. McGhan and note-takers everywhere. Anyone not believing that Trump instructed that Mueller be fired has to have spent the last three years on Neptune.
May 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.
Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.
There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release - a process that our Office is working with you to complete that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter.
Robert S. Mueller III
RayUSA , 20 minutes ago linkAsoka_The_Great , 57 minutes ago link
Mueller lost any credibility that he might have had after he proved he was not interested at all in the Steele Dossier, along with the DNC/Hillary Campaign financing it. Talk about collusion with a foreign agent!deFLorable hillbilly , 1 hour ago link
Despite Robert Muller's (one the US DARK STATE/WAR STATE's special Henchman) 2 years, 50 millions dollar extensive investigations effort, he has not uncovered any evidences that will exonerate Donald Trump, and prove his innocence, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Donald Trump did not colluded with the Russians and did not obstructed justice.
This means undeniable complicity in Donald Trump's part, in colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice.
Attorney General Barr should extend Special Prosecutor Robert Muller's mandate to Investigate Donald Trump's collusion with Communist Leaders to influence the 2020 Election.
There is a vast amount of evidences that Trump has COLLUDED the communists countries such China, N. Korea, Vietnam and Russia, during his two years in Office, in order, to influence public opinions and attempt to swing the results of 2020 elections.
Trump has frequently visited those COMMUNIST countries, and meet with North Korean Dictator Kim Jun-En for multiple times.
Trump has dinner with the Commie Emperor/Dictator Xi, in Argentina, and talk with him on the phones many times.
And Trump has meet in Russian Dictator Putin, many times.
In short, the overwhelming evidences of Trump's COLLUSION with those COMMUNIST countries to influence the 2020 election, leaves NO room for doubt.
Therefore, the IMPEACHMENT of Donald Trump must proceed, immediately, from Muller's conclusion of his investigations.
A length JAIL TERM is appropriate for his BRUTAL BETRAYAL of THE TRUST, the American People, has placed upon him.
And it is time to restore Hitlery as our lawfully elected POTUS, in the White House.
* * *
For the Trumpards, who might be too stupid, to get this post as a Satire , let me state explicitly that this a Sarcastic Satire . So no more stupid comments on my state of mind.
Sarcastic - Someone who is sarcastic says or does the opposite of what they really mean in order to mock or insult someone.
Satire - a technique used by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society, by using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles.Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 2 hours ago link
A SC's job is to gather evidence and either charge a crime or not, depending on what evidence exists. That's it.
Thus if no charge was filed, insufficient evidence exists to support the allegation.
Under no circumstance is a prosecutor supposed to publicly impugn the character of someone who has been investigated and not charged. Or suggest that they're guilty of anything in any way.Mimir , 2 hours ago link
"There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation."
Wasn't the the goal Heir Mueller?
Find NO Collusion but NOT exonerate on obstruction to give the small minds (Steverino comes to mind) enough ambiguity to keep running with the ball. these people are desperate, from their actions they appear very afraid. Subpoenaing Tiffany Trump's debit card transactions from college? Remember when it was cruel to point out how freeking fugly Chelsea was? And now you can rifle through a President's kids bank transactions? WTF?
Hang these fookers Mr. Trump- PLEASE!Spaced Out , 1 hour ago link
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." (Mullers' letter to Barr)
So when Barr and the spokeswoman of the Justice Department continue to repeat that Mueller did not criticize the content of Barr's summary letter, they are lying.Thordoom , 2 hours ago link
This partisan ZH report is shamelessly misleading readers. Even WaPo admitted in its report that Justice Department officials said Mueller was "concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the special counsel's work", Justice Department officials told the Post .
Mueller was actually more concerned about the spin being put on the letter by the corporate media .
You'll get a more accurate picture from Prison Planet than from ZH.
Do you know what they covering up?
Ukraine & DNC who came up with Steele Dossier because the opens up a can of worms you don't want to open.
Ukrainians came out with all that stuff about Trump and pissing ladies of the night.
May 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
No Holds Barred 2020 Candidates Demand Resignation As Dems Spew Fire And Brimstone During Dramatic Hearing
May 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/01/2019 - 15:33 8 SHARES
Update 16: And here are the key takeaways from Wednesday's hearing, courtesy of Bloomberg .
- The Democrats on the committee were harsh, calling Barr a liar and Senator Mazie Hirono told him he should resign. Other senators, like Warren and Van Hollen, as well as several House members, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, also called for Barr to step down.
- The Republicans were ready to defend the attorney general. Chairman Lindsey Graham said Barr was slandered from top to bottom, while Ted Cruz praised Barr for his transparency.
- Barr, meanwhile, was firm in his defense of the president. ``Evidence is now that the president has been falsely accused'' of colluding with Russians and even of treason, Barr told the panel.
- Much of the focus of the hearing was a letter Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote in March, complaining that Barr's summary of his report was misleading and urging him to release more information immediately. Barr called the letter ``a bit snitty,'' in his testimony.
- Barr is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow, but whether he does remains up in the air.The attorney general has objected to Democratic plans to have staff lawyers question him. No one on the Senate panel asked Barr if he would appear before the House.
* * *
Update 15: After Harris, Graham said he was going to one last go-round and give lawmakers a chance to ask follow-ups before calling the hearing to a close, which he did around 3:15 pm ET.
First, it appears all the Senators running for president who weren't present at the hearing (or at least those who aren't polling near the top of the pack), felt obligated to call on Barr to resign via Twitter.
And even some of Barr's interlocutors joined in the fun.
During the second round, Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar and - of course - Richard Blumenthal decided to ask follow-up questions including lobbing questions about whether Mueller probed President Trump's taxes (Barr couldn't say), to whether Barr should recuse himself from DoJ's prosecution of Goldman Sachs over its involvement in the 1MDB scandal.
Asked by Blumenthal about his conversation with Mueller after the letter was received, Barr said he called Mueller with Rod Rosenstein and others in the room and asked him 'Bob, what's up with the letter'? Barr ended up dismissing the complaint as "a little bit snitty." And with that, the more than 5 hour hearing - which included a lengthy break in the middle of the day - came to a close.
* * *
Update 14: Finally, it was Kamala Harris's turn. As the presidential candidate with the highest poll numbers, Harris certainly succeeded in securing some clips for her campaign ads.
For a second, Barr appeared to be thrown off by Harris's first question: "Has the president or anyone else asked you to open an investigation into anyone?" She added "suggested" or "inferred" as qualifiers. He ended up replying that he didn't know.
Later, when Barr interrupted her, she snapped "Sir I am asking a question." After questioning whether Barr should recuse himself from overseeing the 14 criminal referrals from the Mueller probe, Harris concluded that it appeared Barr wasn't familiar with the underlying evidence.
Here's the full exchange.
* * *
Update 13: After patiently biding his time, Spartacus finally got his chance to speak. Unfortunately for the Senator, whose presidential bid is floundering, Barr easily parried his rhetorical thrusts, making the senator look almost inept.
Booker went all in on Russia, accusing Barr of protecting an administration that had "hundreds" of documented contacts with foreign adversaries, and of "normalizing" deceit and lies.
"You're giving sanction to behavior in language you used at your press conference, and in your summary, that stimulated Mueller to write such a strong rebuking letter. You're adding normalcy to a point where we should be sounding alarms."
Barr replied that it's not unusual for foreign governments to reach out to presidential campaigns, and avoided answering most of Booker's other questions by asking Booker to elaborate or saying he didn't know what Booker was talking about.
Booker's question about whether the American people should be 'grateful' for campaign contacts with the Russians.
* * *
Update 12: In another highlight from the Democrats' lineup, 'Da Nang Dick' Blumenthal (a former AG from the state of Connecticut) sparred with Barr over whether he should recuse himself from overseeing some of the seed investigations that resulted from Mueller's work (Barr said he won't), with Blumenthal insinuating that Barr has been acting like a mole for the White House and keeping the president apprised of developments in all the ongoing investigations.
Blumenthal said to Barr after bashing him for neglecting to disclose the Mueller letter: "I think history will judge you harshly.
After Barr excoriated the Dems for trying to weaponize the DOJ as a political tool, Barr said "I'm not in the business of determining if lies were told to the American people,'' Barr says. "I'm in the business of determining if crimes were committed."
Here are the highlights from the exchange.
* * *
Update 11: The first Democrat up after the break was Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota senator and presidential contender whose campaign has been marred by allegations that she was an abusive, vindictive boss. She was the first of the presidential candidates in the room to ask a question.
Unsurprisingly, she didn't hold back, and offered basically a 'greatest hits' of the Democrats' gripes so far: Accusing Barr of misleading Congress during his prior testimony, questioning whether Trump's statements would amount to perjury and accusing Barr of misrepresenting himself during his last appearance before Congress.
To sum up, she did everything short of chucking a stapler at Barr.
* * *
Update 10: Though she isn't in the room today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren felt she needed to communicate a very important message to Barr: That she would like him to resign.
And just like that, Barr has been hit with the Warren curse.
* * *
Update 9: Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana kicked off the second leg of Barr's testimony by asking probing questions about investigating what lead to the start of the Mueller report, and the source of leaks inside the FBI.
Kennedy also asked Barr to look into the Mueller team as well.
* * *
Update 8: Lindsey Graham has called for an hour-long break in the hearing to accommodate a few Senate votes (and a lunch break for the Senators and Barr).
Here's a summary of the first half of the hearing (per BBG):
- While Republicans are delving into why an FBI investigation was launched into the Trump campaign, and why Hillary Clinton wasn't investigated further, Democrats have been focusing on a letter Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote Barr in March, complaining about the way his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election was summarized.
- Barr told the committee he didn't want to release the report in a piecemeal fashion, but put it out in full with appropriate redactions.
- Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham says as far as he's concerned the Mueller probe is over and he wants to focus on the beginning of the FBI investigation.
- For Democrats it's not over though, and they pressed Barr on his refusal to rule that the president obstructed justice, despite at least 10 instances of that cited in Mueller's report.
- Barr said he was surprised Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction, suggesting that was his job. But after reviewing the evidence, he and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, concluded the president lacked the corrupt intent necessary to find he obstructed justice.
- Barr said he has no objection to Mueller testifying before Congress.
- But the Attorney General said it'd be up to the president to decide whether former White House Counsel Don McGahn can testify.
Meanwhile, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, desperate for attention considering it's looking extremely likely that Barr is going to blow him off tomorrow, told reporters that Barr has threatened not to appear tomorrow if staff attorneys are allowed to question him. The Committee just voted to allow staff attorneys to ask questions.
* * *
Update 7: In response to questioning from Mike Lee about FBI and DOJ overreach, Barr said he believes it was a few people in senior positions who are 'no longer there'.
Following that, Lee asked Barr if there is any evidence that Vladimir Putin "has something" on Trump. "None that I am aware of," he said.
* * *
Update 6: Dick Durbin, a member of the Democratic leadership, is up, and he's laying into Barr, accusing the Republicans on the committee of trying to distract from Mueller's findings by bringing up the Clintons, and pressing him on his testimony on April 9 and April 10.
Republicans on the panel and Barr were engaging in a "coordinated" response to focus on Hillary's emails instead of the Mueller report...what he called a "lock 'er up" defense.
* * *
Update 5: Asked by John Cornyn about whether the Steele Dossier was a disinformation campaign, Barr said he couldn't say that it wasn't, and that this is something he is actively looking into.
That's not "entirely speculative," Barr said.
* * *
Update 4: Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, was predictably hostile, accusing Barr of "filibustering" and misleading Congress with his testimony on April 9 and April 10, when he said he hadn't heard any concerns from Mueller.
"I believe your answer was purposefully misleading, and others do, too."
* * *
Update 3: Chuck Grassley, who had been chairman of the Judiciary Committee until this year, when he took on another committee leadership role and left the leadership of the Judiciary campaign, jumps right into it: He asked Barr whether Mueller should have looked into whether the Steele Dossier was a Russian disinformation campaign.
He also asked whether Mueller should have looked into the origins of the FBI probe into Russian collusion that ultimately morphed into the Mueller probe.
Barr said he would look into whether Mueller explored this avenue.
* * *
Update 2: In his opening statement, Barr told Congress that he had spoken to Mueller and that the special counsel said press reporting on the letter that the special counsel had written to Barr complaining about certain aspects of Barr's summary was inaccurate.
- BARR SAYS MUELLER SAID PRESS REPORTING ON LETTER WAS INACCURATE
- BARR SAYS MUELLER DIDN'T SAY DOJ MISREPRESENTED HIS REPORT
Barr added that he was 'surprised' when Mueller didn't rule on obstruction, though he also told said that Comey's firing didn't amount to obstruction of justice: Comey's refusal to tell public what he was telling the president warranted firing.
During his questioning by Feinstein, which focused on what Trump told former White House counsel Donald McGahn II, Barr more than held his own, arguing that it would be impossible to prove the president ever actually directed the firing of Mueller, and it would also be difficult to show corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Barr went on to describe Trump as "falsely accused" of Russian conspiracy "and he felt this investigation was unfair and propelled by political opponents."
"That is not a corrupt motive."
* * *
Update: As the Barr hearing began, Jerry Nadler, apparently uncomfortable with being out of the spotlight, told reporters that talks with Mueller to appear before Congress had made progress, and that the two sides just needed to agree on a date for the hearing. Right now, it's looking like that hearing - which could be the biggest Washington media circus since Comey's testimony in June 2017 - will happen in May.
- NADLER: AGREEMENT ON MUELLER TESTIFYING SUBJECT TO SETTING DATE
During his opening statement, Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, defended Mueller and his conclusions, and blasted the FBI (even reading off some of Peter Strzok's text messages) for its bias toward Trump, and for failing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable.
- GRAHAM SAYS CLINTON E-MAIL PROBE DONE BY ANTI-TRUMP PEOPLE
- GRAHAM SAYS `FOR ME IT IS OVER'
And as is his custom, President Trump reminded voters that Mueller found 'no collusion and no obstruction' shortly before the hearing began.
Diane Feinstein, the ranking member, excoriated Barr for his purported biases and dissembling, and demanded that the panel must hear from Mueller as well.
- FEINSTEIN SAYS SENATE PANEL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM MUELLER
Of note: Barr has handed over the full Mueller letter. Read it below:
* * *
Last night's deep-state 'leak' of a letter penned by Robert Mueller to AG (and longtime friend and colleague) William Barr complaining that Barr's summary of Mueller's findings, released several weeks before the redacted report, didn't capture the full "context, nature and substance" of the report was of course conveniently timed to hand Democrats plenty of ammunition to tear into Barr during Wednesday morning's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Of course, as we've pointed out , when Barr pressed Mueller about whether Barr's summary was inaccurate, the special counsel demurred, and affirmed that he didn't think it was. Mueller's letter was reportedly dated March 27. Barr released the summary on March 24.)
But the fact Barr insisted during back-to-back Congressional testimony on April 9 & April 10 that he didn't know where the special counsel stood regarding the AG's characterization of the report has already prompted some Democratic senators to demand Barr's resignation, per the Washington Post.
Chris Van Hollen, the Senator who asked Barr about what he knew about Mueller's feelings about the summary, demanded Barr resign and once again accused him of being a 'propaganda chief' for the president.
He labeled his position "the most recent example of the attorney general acting as the chief propagandist for the Trump administration instead of answering questions in a straightforward and objective manner."
In a prepared statement for the committee, Barr defended his handling of the special counsel's investigation.
"As Attorney General, I serve as the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States, and it is my responsibility to ensure that the Department carries out its law-enforcement functions appropriately. The Special Counsel's investigation was no exception."
Pelosi seized on the reports about the Mueller letter to demand that Barr release the full Mueller report and all the underlying docs that the Demos have subpoenaed.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler demanded that Barr appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday for another hearing, as the Dems have requested.
And Chuck Schumer demanded that Barr bring the full Mueller letter with him to Wednesday's hearing, and also demanded that Mueller appear before Congress to testify.
The Dems lapdogs in the press have also piled on, with CNN's Chris Cilizza warning that "William Barr is in deep trouble" in an editorial published Wednesday morning shortly before the hearing was set to begin.
With all the drama, Wednesday's hearing is bound to be a lively one. Watch live below:
And Read Barr's prepared remarks below:
May 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Asoka_The_Great , 4 minutes ago link
Here is my take, on this entire Sh*tshow, running in Washington DC, for the last two years.
1. All the evidences are pointing the most likely scenario that Donald Trump is a Manchurian Candidate ordered by the Kremelin to run for Office, in 2016.
2. Then, Donald Trump COLLUDED with the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service to win the Presidency of United States, with shocking easy.
3. This was because Hitlery Clinton and Joe Biden , was bribed by Putin, through the Ukrainians, with hundred of millions of dollars, so she would purposely lose the "sure win" race, to a political nobody, Donald Trump.
4. Then, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, produced the Steele Dossier, a political disinformation tool, in collaboration with Britain's Mi6 and CIA.
5. Then the Russians leaked the COLLUSION story to the CIA controlled MSM such as New York Time, Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, etc . . ., so they would predictably kicked a storm of controversy over the COLLUSION, and demand the DOJ to appoint a Special Prosecutor to initial an investigation.
6. This diabolically devilish Special PsyOps by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has succeeded in tying up Washington DC, in a Sh*tshow, for the last two years, and divided the Country in bitter controversy.
7. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service and Chinese Communists' Intelligence Service have thoroughly infiltrated America's Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA, and NSA, and use their high levels agents, such as O'bomer, Hitlery, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, and rosenstein to stirred up this COLLUSION storm, to paralyze America's political system for as long as possible.
In Summary, the entire sh*tshow is a production of a Special PsyOps by the Russkies and ChiComs' Intelligence Services. It has nothing to do with America's dysfunctional government, called DemoCrazy .
Mar 26, 2019 | outline.com
For more than two years, leading US political and media voices promoted a narrative that Donald Trump conspired with or was compromised by the Kremlin, and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove it. In the process, they overlooked countervailing evidence and diverted anti-Trump energies into fervent speculation and prolonged anticipation. So long as Mueller was on the case, it was possible to believe that " The Walls Are Closing In " on the traitor / puppet / asset in the White House .
The long-awaited completion of Mueller's probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative -- and the expectations it fueled -- to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller's report does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but it declines to issue a verdict on obstruction. It presents no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with an alleged effort by the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton, and instead renders this conclusion: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." As a result, Mueller's report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.
1. Russiagate Without Russia
The most fundamental element of a conspiracy is contact between the two parties doing the conspiring. Hence, on the eve of the report's release, The New York Times noted that among the "outstanding questions" that Mueller would answer were the nature of "contacts between Kremlin intermediaries and the Trump campaign."
Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect." If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with, perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
To borrow a phrase from Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, when it comes to the core question of contacts between Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a "Russiagate without Russia." Instead we have a series of interactions where Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to the Russian government. But none of these "links," "ties," or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track every known instance in which someone in Trump's orbit interacted with " the Russians ," or someone who can be linked to them . There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national -- but there is something xenophobic about implying as much.
2. Russiagate's Predicate Led Nowhere
The most glaring absence of a Kremlin intermediary comes in the case that ostensibly prompted the entire Trump-Russia investigation. During an April 2016 meeting in Rome, a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud reportedly informed Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. That information made its way to the FBI, which used it as a pretext to open the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe on July 31, 2016. Papadopoulos was later indicted for lying to FBI agents about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud. The case stoked speculation that Papadopoulos acted as an intermediary between Trump and Russia .
But Papadopoulos played no such role. And while the Mueller report says that Papadopoulos "understood Mifsud to have substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials," it never asserts that Mifsud actuall y had those connections. Since Mifsud's suspected Russian connections were the purported predicate for the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, that is a conspicuous non-call. Another is the revelation from Mueller that Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators when they interviewed him in February 2017 -- but yet, unlike Papadopoulos, Mifsud was not indicted. Thus, even the interaction that sparked the Russia-collusion probe did not reveal collusion.
3. Sergey Kislyak Had "Brief and Non-Substantive" Interactions With the Trump Camp
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations with Trump campaign officials and associates during and after the 2016 election were the focus of intense controversy and speculation, leading to the recusal of Jeff Sessions, then attorney general, and to the indictment of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
After an exhaustive review, Mueller concluded that Kislyak's interactions with Trump campaign officials at public events "were brief, public, and non-substantive." As for Kislyak's much – ballyhooed meeting which Sessions in September 2016, Mueller saw no reason to dispute that it "included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign." When Kislyak spoke with other Trump aides after the August 2016 Republican National Convention, Mueller "did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
The same goes for Kislyak's post-election conversations with Flynn. Mueller indicted Flynn for making "false statements and omissions" in an interview with the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. The prevailing supposition was that Flynn lied in order to hide from the FBI an election-related payoff or " quid pro quo " with the Kremlin. The report punctures that thesis by reaffirming the facts in Flynn's indictment: What Flynn hid from agents was that he had "called Kislyak to request Russian restraint" in response to sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration, and that Kislyak had agreed. Mueller ruled out the possibility that Flynn could have implicated Trump in anything criminal by noting the absence of evidence that Flynn "possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive to end the FBI's inquiry into Flynn's conduct."
4. Trump Tower Moscow Had No Help From Moscow
The November 2018 indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely seen as damning, possibly impeachment-worthy, for Trump. Cohen admitted to giving false written answers to Congress in a bid to downplay Trump's personal knowledge of his company's failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. To proponents of the collusion theory, Cohen's admitted lies were proof that " Trump is compromised by Russia ," " full stop ."
But the Mueller report does not show any such compromise, and, in fact, shows there to be no Trump-Kremlin relationship. Cohen, the report notes, "requested [Kremlin] assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with financing." The request was evidently rejected. Elena Poliakova, the personal assistant to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, spoke with Cohen by phone after he e-mailed her office for help. After their 20-minute call, the report says, "Cohen could not recall any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
5. and Trump Didn't Ask Cohen to Lie About It
The Mueller report not only dispels the notion that Trump had secret dealings with the Kremlin over Trump Tower Moscow; it also rejects a related impeachment-level "bombshell." In January, BuzzFeed News reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump "directed" Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project. But according to Mueller, "the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony," and that Cohen himself testified "that he and the President did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow project would be or was false." In a de-facto retraction, BuzzFeed updated its story with an acknowledgment of Mueller's conclusion .
6. The Trump Tower Meeting Really Was Just a "Waste of Time"
The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was widely dubbed the " Smoking Gun ." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure the meeting, because in reality, as he told NPR , "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]." The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."
7. Manafort Did Not Share Polling Data to Meddle in the US Election
In January, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators about several matters, including sharing Trump polling data and discussing a Ukraine peace plan with a Ukrainian-Russian colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 campaign. According to Mueller, the FBI "assesses" that Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." To collusion proponents, the revelation was dubbed " the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual collusion " and even the " Russian collusion smoking gun ."
Mueller, of course, reached a different conclusion: He "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election," and, moreover, "did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts." Mueller noted that he "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing" the polling data, but also acknowledged (and bolstered) the explanation of his star witness, Rick Gates, that Manafort was motivated by proving his financial value to former and future clients.
Mueller also gave us new reasons to doubt the assertions that Kilimnik himself is a Russian intelligence asset or spy. First, Mueller did not join media pundits in asserting such about Kilimnik. Second, to support his vague contention that Kilimnik has, according to the FBI, "ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller offered up a list of " pieces of the Office's Evidence" that contains no direct evidence. For his part, Kilimnik has repeatedly stated that he has no such ties, and recently told The Washington Post that Mueller never attempted to interview him.
8. The Steele Dossier Was Fiction
The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent politicians , pundits , and media outlets promoted it as credible .
The Mueller report, The New York Times noted last week , has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later denied the claim under oath, and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague."
After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that" the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
9. The Trump Campaign Had No Secret Channel to WikiLeaks
In January, veteran Republican operative and conspiracy theorist Roger Stone caused a stir when he was indicted for lying to Congress about his efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks. But Mueller's indictment actually showed that Stone had no communications with WikiLeaks before the election and no privileged information about its releases . Most significantly, it revealed that Trump officials were trying to learn about the WikiLeaks releases through Stone -- a fact that underscored that the Trump campaign neither worked with WikiLeaks nor had advance knowledge of its e-mail dumps.
Mueller's final report does nothing to alter that picture. Its sections on Stone are heavily redacted, owing to Stone's pending trial. But they do make clear that Mueller conducted an extensive search to establish a tie between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign, and Stone -- and came up empty. New reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far their farcical efforts went. The Mueller team devoted time and energy to determine whether far-right conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the false claim that Barack Obama was born outside the United States, served as a link between Stone and WikiLeaks. Mueller's prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing, cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories," the Post reports. "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself." It is unsurprising that this led Mueller's prosecutors to ultimately declare, according to Corsi's attorney, "We can't use any of this."
10. There Was No Cover-Up
The Mueller report does not just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years; it puts to rest the most popular, recent one: that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a cover-up . According to the dominant narrative, Barr was somehow concealing Mueller's damning evidence , while Mueller, even more improbably, stayed silent.
One could argue that Barr's summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller's report does "not exonerate" Trump. It was Mueller's decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees, it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller's office assisted with Barr's redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged, extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the report's contents.
In the end, Mueller's report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and media establishments to be a work of fiction . The American public was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.
It is too early to assess the damage that influential Russiagate promoters have done to their own reputations; to public confidence in our democratic system and media; and to the prospects of defeating Trump, who always stood to benefit if the all-consuming conspiracy theory ultimately collapsed. The scale of the wreckage, confirmed by Mueller's report, may prove to be the ultimate Russiagate scandal.
Apr 22, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
The British Role in 'Russiagate' Is About to Be Fully Exposed April 8, 2019 20190408-russiagate-exposed-brits.pdf The "fake news" media has now dropped its pretense of having ever had any intention of allowing the truth -- as documented in U.S. Attorney General Barr's summary of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report, exonerating President Donald Trump of having "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" -- to thoroughly refute the Russiagate "Big Lie." Soon, however, it is certain that the deliberate, British Intelligence-originated, military-grade disinformation campaign carried out against the United States, including to this day, will be exposed.
The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth, along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks.
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat," says the Chinese proverb. Yet, although the Mueller report was called a "nothing burger," it was not: it still presented the potentially lethal lie that twelve Russian gremlins, code-named Guccifer 2.0, hacked the DNC. Sundry media meatheads thus continue to blog and broadcast about "what else is really there."
The false Russian hack story, still being repeated, marches on, undeterred, like the emperor without any clothes. One lame-brained variation, promoted in order to cover up the British role, states that Hillary Clinton, rather than Trump, colluded with the Russians. It is being repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, some of them malicious, some of them confused, and all of them completely wrong. The media, such as the failed New York Times and various electronic media, must be forced to either admit the truth, or be even more thoroughly discredited than they already have been. They must stop their constant repetition of this Joseph Goebbels-like Big Lie. There must be a vigorous dissemination of the truth by all those journalists, politicians, activists and citizens that love truth more than their own assumptions, including about President Trump, or other dearly-held systems of false belief.
Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper policy motivation: why it was done.A New Cultural Paradigm
The world is actually on the verge of ending the military conflicts among the major world powers, such as Russia, China, the United States, and India. These four powers, and not the City of London, are the key fulcrum around which a new era in humanity's future will be decided. A new monetary and credit system brought into being through these four powers would foster the greatest physical economic growth in the history of humanity. In addition, discussions involving Italy working with China on the industrialization of the African continent (discussions which could soon also involve the United States) show that sections of Europe want to join China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and leave the dying trans-Atlantic financial empire behind.
The recent announcement of a United States commitment to return to the Moon by 2024 can, in particular, become the basis for a proposal to other nations -- for example, China, Russia, and India, all of whom are space powers of demonstrated capability -- to resolve their differences on Earth in a higher, joint mission. As Russia's Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said in a recent interview:
"I am a fierce proponent of international cooperation, including with Americans, because their country is big and technologically advanced, and they can make good partners Especially since personal and professional relations between Roscosmos and NASA at the working level are great."
There is also the possibility of ending the danger of thermonuclear war. President Trump, speaking on April 4 of the prospects for world peace, stated:
"Between Russia, China, and us, we're all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous. I think it's much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons those three countries I think can come together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace."
This is a statement of real importance. Such an outlook is a rejection of the "perpetual crisis/perpetual war" outlook of the Bush-Obama Administration, a four-term "war presidency" which was abruptly, unexpectedly ended in 2016. The British were not amused.
It is to stop this new cultural paradigm, pivoted on the Pacific and the potential Four Powers alliance, that British imperial forces have deployed. The 2016 election of President Trump, and his personal friendship with President Xi Jinping and desire to work with President Putin, are an intolerable strategic threat to the eighteenth-century geopolitics of the British empire. They have repeatedly used Russiagate to disrupt the process of deliberation among Presidents Xi, Trump, and Putin, thus increasing the danger of war. Russiagate, in the interest of international security, must be ended by exposing it for the utter fraud that it is.The Truth Set Free
President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office, Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth, and the truth would set them free.
The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street, or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence,
"The history of the present Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the undermining of the United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
While Robert Mueller found that there was "no collusion" between Donald Trump or the Trump Campaign and Russia, he also filed two indictments regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The first alleges that 12 members of Russian Military Intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta and delivered the purloined files to WikiLeaks for strategic publication before the July 2016 Democratic National Convention and in October 2016, one month before the election. The second indictment charges the Internet Research Agency, a Russian internet merchandising and marketing firm, with running social media campaigns in the U.S. in 2016 designed to impact the election. When the fuller version of the Mueller report becomes public, it is certain to recharge the claims of Russian interference based on the so-called background "evidence" supporting these indictments.
The good news, however, is that investigations in the United States and Britain, have unearthed significant contrary evidence exposing British Intelligence, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, as the actual foreign actors in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We provide a short summary of the main aspects of that evidence to spark further investigations of the British intelligence networks, entities, and methods at issue, internationally. More detailed accounts concerning specific aspects of what we recite here can be found on our website.The Russian Hack That Wasn't
The Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an association of former U.S. intelligence officials, have demonstrated that the Russian hack of the DNC alleged by Robert Mueller, was more likely an internal leak, rather than a hack conducted over the internet. William Binney, who conducted the main investigations for the VIPS, spent 30 years at the National Security Agency, becoming Technical Director. He designed the sorts of NSA programs that would detect a Russian hack if one occurred. Binney conducted an actual forensic examination of the DNC files released by WikiLeaks, and the related files circulated by the persona Guccifer 2.0, who Robert Mueller claims is a GRU creation. Binney has demonstrated that the calculated transfer speeds and metadata characteristics of these files are consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or storage device rather than an internet-based hack. This supports the account by WikiLeaks of how it obtained the files. According to WikiLeaks and former Ambassador Craig Murray, they were obtained from a person who was not a Russian state actor of any kind, in Washington, D.C. WikiLeaks offered to tell the Justice Department all about this, and actual negotiations to this effect were proceeding in early 2017, when Senator Mark Warner and FBI Director James Comey acted to sabotage and end the negotiations.
Further, as opposed to the hyperbole in the media and in Robert Mueller's indictment, analysis of the Internet Research Agency's alleged "weaponization" of Facebook in 2016 involved a paltry total of $46,000 in Facebook ads and $4,700 spent on Google platforms . In an election in which the major campaigns spend tens of thousands of dollars every day on these platforms, whatever the IRA thought it was doing in its amateurish and juvenile memes and tropes was like throwing a stone in the ocean. Most of these activities occurred after the election and never mentioned either candidate. The interpretation that these ads were designed to draw clicks and website traffic, rather than influence the election, must be considered.
The "evidence" for Mueller's GRU hacking indictment was provided, in part, by CrowdStrike, the DNC vendor that originated the claims that the Russians had hacked that entity. CrowdStrike is closely associated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Lab (DRL), an operation jointly funded by NATO's Strategic Communications Center and the U.S. State Department, to counter Russian "hybrid warfare." CrowdStrike has been caught more than once falsely attributing hacks to the Russians and the Atlantic Council's DRL is a font of anti-Russian intelligence operations.The British Target Trump
According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. The former head of the Russia Desk for MI6 and protégé of Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, fresh from working for British Intelligence, the FBI, and U.S. State Department in the 2014 Ukraine coup, assembled in 2016 a phony dossier called Operation Charlemagne, claiming widespread Russian interference in European elections, including in the Brexit vote. By the spring of 2016, Steele was contributing to a British/U.S. intelligence task force on the Trump Campaign which had been convened at CIA headquarters under John Brennan's direction.
This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. The personnel employed in these operations all had multiple connections to the British firm Hakluyt, to Steele's firm Orbis, and to the British military's Integrity Initiative. Sometime in the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then head of GCHQ, flew to Washington to brief John Brennan personally. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage control.
Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were already on the radar and under investigation by the same British, Dearlove-centered intelligence network and by Christopher Steele specifically. Flynn had been defamed by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, as a possible Russian agent way back in 2014 because he spoke to Russian researcher Svetlana Lokhova at a dinner sponsored by Dearlove's Cambridge Security Forum. Or, at least that was the pretext for the targeting of Flynn, who otherwise defied British intelligence by exposing Western support for terrorist operations in Syria and sought a collaborative relationship with Russia to counter ISIS. Manafort was under FBI investigation throughout 2014 and 2015, largely in retaliation for his role in steering the Party of the Regions to political power in Ukraine.
In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine. Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department.
In or around June 2016, Christopher Steele began writing his dirty and bogus dossier about Trump and Russia. This is the dossier which claimed that Trump was compromised by Putin and that Putin was coordinating with Trump in the 2016 election. The main "legend" of this full-spectrum information warfare operation run from Britain, was that Donald Trump was receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from Russia. The operations targeting Page and Papadopoulos consisted of multiple attempts to plant fabricated evidence on them which would reflect what Steele himself was fabricating in the dirty dossier. At the very same time, the infamous June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was being set up. That meeting involved the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, it was alleged in a series of bizarre emails written by British publicist Ron Goldstone to set up the meeting, could deliver "dirt" on Hillary Clinton direct from the Russian government. Veselnitskaya didn't deliver any such dirt. But the entire operation was being monitored by State Department intelligence agent Kyle Parker, an expert on Russia. Parker's emails reveal deep ties to the highest levels of British intelligence and much chatter between them about Trump and Russia.
A now-changed version of the website for Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis, trumpeted an expertise in information warfare operations, and the networks in which Steele runs are deeply integrated into the British military's Integrity Initiative. The Integrity Initiative is a rapid response propaganda operation using major journalists in the United States and Europe to carry out targeted defamation campaigns. Its central charge, according to documents posted by the hacking group Anonymous, is selling the United States and Western Europe on the immediate need for regime change in Russia, even if that involves war.
Much has been made by Republicans and other lunkheads in the U.S. Congress of Steele's contacts with Russians for his dossier. They claim that such contacts resulted in a Russian disinformation operation being run through the duped Christopher Steele. Nothing could be further from the truth.MI6's Dirty Dossier on Donald Trump: Full-Spectrum Information Warfare
On its face, Steele's dossier would immediately be recognized as a complete fabrication by any competent intelligence analyst. He cites some 32 sources inside the Russian government for his fabricated claims about Trump. What they allegedly told him is specific enough in time and content to identify them. To believe that the dossier is true or that actual Russians contributed to it, you must also believe that that the British government was willing to roll up this entire network, exposing them, since the intention was for the dossier's wild claims to be published as widely as possible. By all accounts, Britain and the United States together do not have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy tradecraft. Steele's fabrication also uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19% of the energy company Rosneft, (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for lifting sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Other claims in the dossier were published, publicly, in various Ukrainian publications. The famous claim that Trump directed prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama seems to be plagiarized from similarly fake 2009 British propaganda stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome, "defiling" Putin's bed. According to various sources in the United States, this outrageous claim was made by Sergei Millian. George Papadopoulos has stated that he believes Millian is an FBI informant, recounting in his book how a friend of Millian's blurted this out when Millian, Papadopoulos and the friend were having coffee.
The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA.
Despite its obvious fake pedigree, Steele's dossier was laundered into the Justice Department repeatedly, by the CIA and State Department and the Obama White House. It was used to obtain FISA surveillance warrants turning key members of the Trump Campaign into walking microphones. It was circulated endlessly by the Clinton Campaign to a network of reporters in the U.S. known to serve as scribes for the intelligence community. John Brennan used it to conduct a special emergency briefing of the leading members of the U.S. Congress charged with intelligence responsibilities in August of 2016 and to brief Harry Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader at the time. All of this activity meant that the salacious accusation that Trump was a Putin pawn and the FBI was investigating the matter, leaked out and was used by the Clinton Campaign to defame Trump for its electoral advantage. When Trump won, Steele's nonsense received the stamp of the U.S. intelligence community and official currency in the campaign to take out the President.
As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. The individuals involved might be named Veterans of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, since all of them also worked on this operation. It is no accident that Victoria Nuland, the case agent for the Ukraine coup, played a major role in bolstering Steele's credentials for the purpose of selling his dirty dossier to the media and to the Justice Department. This went so far as Steele giving a full scale briefing on his fabricated dossier at the State Department in October 2016.
Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda, against Russia.
The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department. Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly, in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected.
This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest.Sign the Petition: President Trump, Declassify the Docs on the British Role in Russiagate
Robert , April 24, 2019 at 14:35
"in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe"
Perhaps add mainstream media to the list of such sincere believers, they will fire their own real journalists.
David Walters , April 24, 2019 at 13:14
"This doesn't mean that Russia would never use hackers to interfere in world political affairs or that Vladimir Putin is some sort of virtuous girl scout, it just means that in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe the unsubstantiated assertions of opaque and unaccountable government agencies about governments who are oppositional to those same agencies."
Anyone who still believes what the IC says if a moron. As Pompeo recently said to the student body of Texas A&M University, my alma matta, the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steel. He went on the explain that the CIA has courses to teach their agent that dark "art".
Eileen Kuch , April 24, 2019 at 18:13
Right, David Walters, and see Pompous Pompeo now. The only truths he's told was to a student body of Texas A&M University – his own alma mater – the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steal.
Even though he's left his post as CIA Director and assumed his current post of Secretary of State. Pompous Pompeo continues his CIA traits of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's in a way similar to a phrase, "A leopard never changes its spots". This is why the DPRK govt issued a Persona Non Grata on Pompous Pompeo – that he isn't a bona fide diplomat, but a CIA official.
CWG , April 22, 2019 at 17:15
Here's my take on the 'Russian Collusion Deep State LIE.
There was NO Russian Collusion at all to get Trump in the White House. Most probably, Putin would have favored Clinton, since she could be bought. Trump can't.
What did happen was illegal spying on the Trump campaign. That started late 2015, WITHOUT a FISA warrant. They only obtained that in 2016, through lying to the FISA Court. The basis for that first warrant was the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
Ever since Trump won the election, they real conspirators knew they had a problem. That was apparent ever after Devin Nunes did the right thing by informing Trump they were spying on him.
Since they obtained those FISA warrant through lying to the FISA Court (which is treason) they needed to cover that up as quickly as possible.
So what did they do? Instead of admitting they lied to the FISA Court they kept on lying till this very day. The same lie through which they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign was being pushed openly.
The lie is and was 'Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the Presidential Election'.
They knew from day one Trump didn't do anything wrong. They did know they spied on Trump through lying to the FISA Court, which again, is treason. According to the Constitution, lying to the FISA court= Treason.
In order to avoid being indicted and prosecuted, they somehow needed to 'take down' the Attorney General. At all costs, they needed to try and hide what really happened.
So there they went. 'Trump colluded with the Russians. Not just Trump, but the entire Trump campaign!'.
'Sessions should recuse himself', the propaganda MSM said in unison. 'Recuse, recuse'.
Sessions, naively recused himself. Back then, even he probably didn't know the entire story. It was only later on that Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon found out it had been Hillary who ordered and paid the Steele Dossier.
The real conspirators hoped that through the Special Counsel rat Mueller they might be able to achieve three main objectives.
1: Convince the American people Russia indeed was meddling in the Presidential Election.
2: Find any sort of dirt on Trump and/or people who helped him win the Election in order to 'take them down'.
Many people were indicted, some were prosecuted. Yet NONE of them were convicted for a crime that had ANYTHING to with with the elections. NONE.
They stretched it out as long as possible. 'The longer you repeat a lie, the more people are willing to believe the lie'.
So that is what they did. They still do it. Mueller took TWO years to brainwash as many people as possible. 'Russian Collusion, Russian Collusion. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Rusiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh ..
Why did they want to make sure they could keep telling that lie as long as possible?
Because they FEAR people will learn the truth. There was NEVER any Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign.
There was spying on the Trump campaign by Obama in order to try and make Hillary win the Presidential Election.
That is the actual COLLUSION between the Clinton Campaign and a weaponized Obama regime!!
So what did 'Herr Mueller' do?
He took YEARS to come up with the conclusion that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia.
The MSM tried to make us all believe it was about that. Yet it was NOT.
His conclusive report is all about the question 'did or didn't the Trump campaign collude with the Russians'.
Trump exonerated, and the MSM only talks about that. Trump, Trump, Trump.
They still want us all to believe that was what the Mueller 'investigation' was all about. Yet it was not.
The most important objective of the Mueller 'investigation' was not to 'investigate'.
It was to 'instigate' that HUGE lie.
The same lie which they used to obtain the FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
So what has 'Herr Mueller' done?
A: He finds ZERO evidence at all which proves the Trump campaign colluded with ANY Russians.
And now the huge lie, which after all was the main objective right from the get go. (A was only a distraction)
B: Russians hacked the DNC.
That is what they wants us all to believe. That Russia somehow did bad stuff.
Now it was not Russia who did bad stuff.
It was Obama working together with the Clinton campaign. Obama weaponized his entire regime in order to let Clinton win the Presidency.
That is the REAL collusion. The real CRIME. Treason!
In order to create a 'cover up' Mueller NEEDED to instigate that Russia somehow did bad things.
That's what the Mueller Dossier is ALL about. They now have 'black on white' 'evidence' that Russia somehow did bad things.
Because if Russia didn't do anything like that, it would make us all ask the fair question 'why did Obama spy on the Trump Campaign'.
Let's go a bit deeper still.
Here's a trap Mueller created. What if Trump would openly doubt the LIE they still push? The HUGE lie that Russia did bad things?
After all, they NEED that LIE in order to COVER UP their own crime.
If Trump would say 'I do not believe Russia did anything to influence the elections, I think Mueller wrote that to COVER UP the real crime', what would happen?
They would say 'GOTCHA now, see Trump is colluding with Russia? He even refuses to accept Russia hacked the DNC, this ultimately proofs Trump indeed is a Russian asset'.
They believe that trap will work. They needed that trap, since if Russia wasn't doing anything wrong, it would show us all THEY were the criminals.
They NEED that lie, in order to COVER UP.
That is the 'Insurance Policy' Stzrok and Page texted about. Even Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon still don't seem to see all that.
They should have attacked the HUGE lie that Russia was somehow hacking the DNC. That is simply not true. It's a Mueller created LIE.
That LIE = the Insurance Policy.
What did they need an Insurance Policy for? They want us all to believe that was about preventing Trump from being elected.
Although true, that is only A.
They NEEDED an Insurance Policy in the unlikely case Trump would become President and would find out they were illegally spying on him!
The REAL crime is Obama weaponized the American Government to spy on even a duly elected President.
What's the punishment for Treason?
About Assange and Seth Rich.
Days after Mueller finishes his 'mission' (Establish the LIE Russia did bad things) which seems to be succesfull, the Deep State arrest the ONLY source who could undermine that lie.
Assange Since he knows who is (Seth Rich?) and who isn't (Russia) the source.
If Assange could testify under oath the emails did not come from Russia, the LIE would be exposed.
No coincidences here. I fear Assange will never testify under oath. I actually fear for his life.
Deniz , April 23, 2019 at 13:48
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama and Clinton are criminals, the far less convincing part of your argument is that Trump is not now beholden to the same MIC interests. Bolton, Abrahams, Pompeo, Pence his relationship with Netanyahu, the overthrow of Madura are all glaring examples that contradict the Rights narrative that he is some type of hero. Trump may not have colluded with Russia, but he does seem to be colluding with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Big Oil and the MIC.
Whether one is on the Right or Left, the house is still made of glass.
boxerwars , April 22, 2019 at 17:13
RE: "A Russian Agent Smear"
Was Pat Tillman Murdered?
JUL 30, 2007
I don't know, but it seems increasingly conceivable. Just absorb these facts:
O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat [expletive] Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed, O'Neal said
In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
The motive? I don't know. It's still likeliest it was an accident. But there's some mysterious testimony in the SI report about nameless snipers. A reader suggests the following interpretation:
News this weekend said that there were "snipers" present and the witnesses didn't remember their names. I believe that's code in the Army–these guys were Delta. In the Tillman incident, these snipers weren't part of the unit and they were never mentioned publicly before. That's a key indicator that they weren't supposed to be acknowledged.
If you've ever read Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden explains how he grew frustrated because interviewed Rangers kept referring to "soldiers from another unit" while claiming they didn't know the unit ID or the soldiers' names. It took him months to crack the unit ID and find people from Delta who were present at the fight.
Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, the Delta operators who earned Medals of Honor in Mogadishu, have always been identified as snipers, too.
If my theory is correct, the Delta guys could have fired the shots – a three-round burst to the forehead from 50 yards is impossible for normal soldiers and Rangers, but is probably an easy shot for those guys. But because Delta doesn't officially exist and Tillman was a hero, nobody in the Army would want to have to explain exactly how the event went down. Easier just to claim hostile fire until the family forced them to do otherwise.
This makes some sense to me, although we shouldn't dismiss the chance he was murdered. Tillman was a star and might have aroused jealousy or resentment. He also opposed the Iraq war and was a proud atheist. In Bush's increasingly sectarian military, that might have stirred hostility. I don't know. But I know enough to want a deeper investigation. My atheist readers will no doubt admire the way Tillman left this world, according to the man who was with him:
As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself, but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like, 'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now."'
(Maybe the Congress can )
////// The USA is aghast with "smears" and "internal investigations" and promised but never produced "White Papers" 'as the world turns' and circles continents Dominated by American Military Power / Predominantly Barbarous / Uncivilized Use of Force / and Arrogantly Effective in it's use of Dominating Military Power.
\\\\ The Poorer Peoples of the World accept their lots-in-life with some acceptance of reality vis-a-vis the "lot-in-life" they've been alleged/assigned.
/// But How Do We Accept The Fact that our Self-Sacrificiing Hero,Pat Tillman, was slaughtered in Afghanistan,
(WITH POSITIVE PROOF) – by his own Fellow American soldiers – ???
!!!! What i'm say'n is, if Tillman represents the Life Surrendering "American Hero"
WHY DID HIS FELLOW "AMERICAN SOLDIERS" ASSASSINATE & MURDER HIM ???????
AND WHY IS THIS STORY BURIED ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SMEAR Stories
that provide prophylactic protection for all the Trump pianist prophylaxis cover
Up for the Right Wing theft of American Democracy under FDR
In favor of Ayn Rand's prevalent OBJECTIVISM under Trump.
"Capitalism and Altruism
capitalism and altruism
cannot coexist in man,
or in the same society".
President Trump represents
Stark & Total Capitalism
Just as "Conservative Party"
Core is in The Confederacy
AKA; The RIGHT WING
The Right Wing of US Gov't
Is All About PRESERVING
Confederate States' Laws
Written by Thomas Jefferson
Prior to The Constitution, which
became the Received/Judicial
Constitutional Law of the Land in
The Republic of the "United States"
Elizabeth K. Burton , April 23, 2019 at 12:50
It's not enough that Trump is clearly a classic narcissist whose behavior will continue to deteriorate the more his actions and statements are attacked and countered? You know what happens when narcissists are driven into a corner by people tearing them down? They get weapons and start killing people.
There is already more than ample evidence to remove Donald Trump from office, not the least being he's clearly mentally unfit. Yet the Democrats, some of whom ran for office on a promise to impeach, are suddenly reticent to act without "more investigation". Nancy Pelosi stated on the record prior to release of the Mueller report impeachment wasn't on the agenda "for now". She's now making noises in the opposite direction, but that's all they are: noise.
The bottom line is the Clintonite New Democrats currently running the party have only one issue to run on next year: getting rid of Donald Trump. They still operate under the delusion they will be able to use him to draw off moderate Republican voters, the same ones they were positive would come out for Hillary Clinton in '16. Their multitude of candidates pay lip service to progressive policy then carefully walk back to the standard centrist positions once the donations start coming, but the common underlying theme was and continues to be "Donald Trump is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat."
In short, without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the Democrat Party has no platform. They need him there as a target, because Mike Pence would be impossible for them to beat. They are under orders, according to various writers who've addressed the Clinton campaign, to block Bernie Sanders and his platform at all costs; and they will allow the country to crash and burn before they disobey those orders. That means keeping Donald Trump right where he is through next November.
Eddie S , April 24, 2019 at 21:14
Exactly right, EKB -- - you can't ballroom dance without a partner! Also reminds me of the couples you occasionally run into where one partner repeatedly runs-down the other, and you get the feeling that the critical partner doesn't have much going on in his/her life so they deflect that by focusing on the other partner
Johnny Ryan S , April 22, 2019 at 13:38
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers – that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
Deniz , April 22, 2019 at 12:36
The Right is currently salivating over the tough law enforcement rhetoric coming out of Barr and Trump.
It reminds me of when Obama was running for office in 2008 when everyone, including myself, was in awe of him. What kept slipping into his soaring anti-intervention speeches, was a commitment to the good war in Afghanistan, which seemed totally out of place with the rest of his rhetoric. The fine print was far more reflective of his administration actions as the rest of it his communications turned out to be just telling people what they wanted to hear.
War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff.
Herman , April 22, 2019 at 11:09
The argument about not inserting Rich and the download is a good one as a defense strategy but doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails. We can only hope that pursuing the truth and producing it will have a cumulative effect and the illusory truth effect will include this truth.
Red Douglas , April 22, 2019 at 16:00
>>> ". . . doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails."
The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages.
Why should we much care how they were acquired and provided to the publisher?
Lily , April 22, 2019 at 17:55
That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony Blair are lyers and mass murderers.
All three of them are free, earning millions with their publicity whereas two brave persons who were telling the truth have been tortured and are still in jail. Reality has become like the most horrible nightmare. Everything simply seems to have turned upside down. No writer would invent such a primitive plot. And yet it is the unbelievable reality.
Dump Pelousy , April 23, 2019 at 13:21
I totally agree with you, and in fact believe that this whole 22month expensive and mind numbing circus has been played out JUST to keep the public from knowing what the emails actually said. Can you imagine Madcow focusing with such ferocity on John Pedesta as she has on Putin, by discussing what he wrote during a presidential campaign to "influence the election" ? We'd be a different country now, not fighting our way thru the McCarthite Swamp she helped create.
Apr 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Mike Whitney via The Unz Review,
Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did? He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely hurt Trump's chances for reelection. But he didn't do that. Why?
Of course, we're assuming that the investigation was never intended to uncover the truth. If it was, then Mueller would have interviewed Julian Assange, Craig Murray and retired members of the Intelligence Community (Ray McGovern, Bill Binney) who have shown that the Podesta emails were leaked by an insider (on a thumbdrive) not hacked by foreign agents. Mueller would have also seized the servers at DNC headquarters and done the necessary forensic investigation, which he never did.
He also would have indicted senior-level agents at the FBI and DOJ who improperly obtained FISA warrants by withholding critical information from the FISA court. He didn't do that either.
Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller's particular objectives. But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:
- To help sabotage Trump's political agenda
- To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump's election
- And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.
These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor.
The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump's moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.
My question is simply this: Why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?
I think I can answer that, but first, we need a little more background. Check out this quote from candidate Trump in 2016:
"We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."
Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? Are you kidding me? That's what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., and now this upstart, New York real estate tycoon is promising to do a complete 180 and move in another direction altogether. No more destabilizing coups, no more bloody military interventions, instead, we're going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight terrorism together? Really?
At the same time Trump was promising this new era of "peace, understanding, and good will," Hillary Clinton was issuing her war whoop at every opportunity. Here's candidate Hillary trying to drum up support for taking on the Russians in Syria:
"The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the Assad regime in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, and the Russians in the air When I was Secretary of State, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones."
Interesting, isn't it? Here's Hillary, the "liberal" Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, stated clearly that "Right now for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia." In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her?
"We have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground," boomed Hillary, meaning that she fully supported the continued use of jihadist proxies in the fight against Assad. "I do think the use of special forces, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening."
War, war and more war, that's the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary's relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp, not that they ever believed that Trump was anything more than what he appeared to be, an unprincipled narcissist with an insatiable lust for power. But they did hope that his dovish comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after it changed, Mueller released his report saying: "Trump is not guilty after all!"
So, what changed? Trump changed.
Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn't lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face?
The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then, sometime after the first summit, he began to backpeddle. He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration and he never reciprocated for Kim's cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing. Trump has made no effort to "build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula" or to strengthen trust between the two leaders. Then, at the Hanoi Summit, Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal steps. In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually lift sanctions.
Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy establishment doesn't want a deal. They want regime change, they've made that perfectly clear. But wasn't Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn't Trump going to pursue "a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past"?
Yes, that was Trump's campaign promise. So, what happened?
There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi's genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and "stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments." ' At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.
Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon, he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump "the peacemaker" is no where to be found, while Trump the 'madman with a knife' is on the loose.
Is that why Mueller let Trump off the hook? Was there a quid pro quo: "You follow our foreign policy directives and we'll make Mueller disappear?
It sure looks like it. play_arrow 2 Reply reply Report flag
Ajax-1 , 24 minutes ago linkstant , 24 minutes ago link
Why? Because logical clear thinking Americans have Russia fatigue. The Deep State knows that the longer the Witch Hunt lasts, the stronger Trump gets.youshallnotkill , 27 minutes ago link
the report was finished last august. hed got all the juice in that squeeze. but i also guess he got a call from somebodys in the GOG mafia[continuity of .gov] deepstate after all is their little bitchPopeRatzo , 30 minutes ago link
Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook? Why did Epstein only get a slap on the wrist? Why is his lawyer defending Trump on air ? Why did the MSM never look into the credible allegations against Clinton and Trump with regards to Epstein ?
I have an inkling that the answer to these questions is all one and the same.Francis Marx , 38 minutes ago link
Donald Trump sure isn't acting like someone who's been "let off the hook".nmewn , 28 minutes ago link
Maybe it just worked out the way it did and there is no conspiracy on Mueller's part.LetThemEatRand , 36 minutes ago link
He had to stop before he implicated himself. For instance, still waiting on "the why" he never put Steele or McCabe or Hillary or Perkins Coie or Rosenstein or Comey etc under oath when it was...THEY... who supplied false evidence to a FISA court , "evidence gathered" (according to Steele) from...ta daaah!...Russians ;-)Lord Raglan , 2 minutes ago link
You can drive yourself crazy wondering whether it was all theater from the start, or whether they put a gun to the head of the guy who was going to expose it was theater until he started playing along. End result, theater.
Stop buying tickets.Anonymous_Beneficiary , 38 minutes ago link
exactly. Just like you can wonder why Justice John Roberts turned on Obamacare and **** on conservatives. Was he sincere or did he get a 3:00 am phone call that if he didn't uphold it, his wife and kids would die in an unfortunate accident?nmewn , 33 minutes ago link
If you have to ask...perhaps you're a moron. It's a dog & pony show.
"Let Him Off The Hook?"
Oh, I dunno...maybe because even with a crack team of demoncraft operatives, Deep State Hillary deadenders and a limitless supply of federal funding even they couldn't come up with "Russian collusion" because...none ever existed? ;-)
Apr 28, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Sam , 28 April 2019 at 04:31 PMWhile I knew about Nellie Ohr and her DOJ husband , what I didn't know was that while she worked for Fusion GPS , fusion was a FBI contractor that had access to NSA database until Admiral Rogers shut it down .
Sounds Like Brennan's CIA laundered information to EX-CIA Nellie Ohr when she was working for Fusion GPS who then laundered this info to Steele , another person employed by Fusion who then gave this back to Bruce Ohr of DOJ who then gave it to the FBI . And they all got paid for their " research " . This then was used to deceive the FISA court . But Admiral Rogers went to this court and warned Trump of the spying and violations of constitutional rights . Shortly after Obama fired admiral Rogers . Sounds fishy to me ? what do you think ?
Apr 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Boyd Cathey via The Unz Review,
The Mueller Report is now public, and our Mainstream Media have filled the airways with all sorts of commentaries and interpretations. We know that - despite the very best efforts of the dedicated Leftist attorneys on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff - there was absolutely no coordination between members of the Trump campaign, or any of his staffers, with Russians. No additional charges have come as a result, other than accusations made earlier of "process crimes" (e.g. failure to report earnings on tax forms, failure to report lobbying work, or not telling investigators what they demanded to hear -- "crimes" that practically every politician in Washington has been guilty of at one time or another and would normally not cause much of a stir). None of these involved Russia.
Of course, that finding has not satisfied many Democrats or the unhinged Leftist crazies in the media, who continue to have visions of "collusion" -- a kind of communications Alzheimers that has poisoned our media now for years. Thus, Representative Eric Swalwell (who is one of nearly two dozen Democrats running for president) continues to assert that there was "collusion," as does the irrepressible (and irresponsible) Adam Schiff: "it's there in plain sight," they insist, "if you just look hard enough, and maybe squint just a bit -- or maybe have those specialized 3-D Russia glasses!"
Such political leaders -- along with those further out in the Leftist loonysphere like Representatives Maxine Waters and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortes -- continue down their Primrose path of post-Marxist madness.
But beyond the collusion/coordination issue, the past couple of weeks have been filled with a swirling controversy concerning what is called "obstruction of justice." And once again, the fundamental issues have been incredibly politicized. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had an obligation, if he and his minions discovered "obstruction of justice," that is, concerted and illegal attempts to obstruct the investigations by the president or his staff, to present charges to the Department of Justice. Yet, all he was able to do was assemble a farrago of "he said/she said" instances, none of which rose to the level of criminal activity. Apparently President Trump told a subaltern "I wish would you fire Mueller," or he wished in a speech in his joking style that "if the Russians had Hillary's emails, they would release them," or he had a private conversation with Vladimir Putin when they met (as all national leaders do!), or his son met with a Russian attorney who supposedly had some "dirt" on the Hillary Clinton campaign (which did not turn out to be the reason for the Trump Tower meeting at all).
None of the ten or eleven cited instances came anywhere close to being actionable or criminal under settled law. In each instance cited, the president's actions (or desires) fell within his purview and authority under Article II of the Constitution. And regarding Trump's desire to fire Mueller, he was on solid legal ground; the Supreme Court in its 1997 decision, Edmonds vs. the United States , declared that "inferior" officials, including an independent counsel, could be removed by presidential action as part of his delegated powers . And, in any case, Mueller was not dismissed.
Mueller had an obligation after examining these situations to make a finding; he did not. By so doing, by avoiding decisions and stringing out such instances in an obviously political sense, he abdicated his responsibility and did his best to impugn Donald Trump and his administration and thus offer grist for continued Democrat attacks on the president all the way through the 2020 election.
Mueller left it up to the Attorney General William Barr and Congress to decide how to proceed. And that is where we are today.
The one issue that both Democrats and most Republicans seem to agree on, the issue which both say is "proven conclusively" by Mueller is that the Russians "attempted to interfere and did interfere" in our 2016 election.
Interesting, is it not, that the Republicans who zealously defend the president and attack the obviously political nature of the Mueller Report would accept, as if on faith and without question, the accusations of Russian interference, also contained in the report?
Turn on Fox and watch, say, Martha MacCallum (e.g., "The Story," April 24, 2019) declare "we all know now without doubt that the Russians tried to interfere" in our elections, or listen to most any GOP congressman repeat that same narrative with unquestioning certitude.
But that assertion - is it truly backed up factually? Where is the evidence, other than largely questionable information sourced from our largely discredited intelligence agencies which, as we know, had a determined goal of overthrowing the president by any means possible?
Almost three years have passed from the first fake news that appeared in the media on the subject of "Russian collusion," a concerted effort launched to discredit at first the Donald Trump candidacy and then sabotage his presidency, including his efforts to stabilize Russian-American relations.
As proof of Russian actions, the Mueller Report cites the indictments against twenty-five Russian citizens who were indicted for attempted "interference" (those Russians are, let us add, quite conveniently out of the country and thus not prosecutable). When those indictments were issued, Russia pointed out the flimsy, unsupported and transparently made-up nature of the charges, and demanded that American authorities provide conclusive proof. Such requests were rebuffed.
In order to evaluate the evidence, the Russian government proposed reestablishing the bilateral expert group on information security that the Obama Administration had terminated, which could have served as a platform for conversation on these matters. The American side was also invited to send Justice Department officials to Russia to attend the proposed public questioning of the Russian citizens named by Mueller. Additionally, Russia offered to publicize the exchanges between the two countries following the publication of the accusations of cyberattacks, exchanges which were conducted through existing channels between October 2016 and January 2017.
Our government refused every offer.
A careful analysis, in fact, fails to show any substantial evidence of Russian cyberattacks and attempts to "subvert democracy." By some estimates, possibly $160,000 -- a paltry sum -- was spent by the Russians during 2016 on social media activities in the United States. Does anyone wish to discover and compare the amount the Chinese Communists or the Saudis would have expended during the same period, for their continued influence and power in Washington and inside-the-Beltway?
It is helpful to examine the charges that have been made, some included in the Mueller Report and accepted blindly by most pundits and politicians, both on the Left and by establishment conservatives.
The Russian government, via their embassy in Washington, has published a 120 page "white paper," The Russiagate Hysteria: A Case of Severe Russiaphobia , responding to the accusations made against them since 2016. Obviously, the Russian document has a particular viewpoint and very specific goal, but that should not deter us from examining it and evaluating its arguments. (I have written on Russia and its relations with the United States on a number of occasions since 2015 and had pieces published by The Unz Review , Communities Digital News , and elsewhere. On my blog , "MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey," I have authored a dozen columns addressing this question).
Here following I list twenty-one claims made regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election and in American domestic affairs. I follow each claim with the Russian response and how others, as noted, have also responded. In most cases I retain the original text, at times with my editing, but, in every case, with all the referenced sources.
These twenty-one claims should be examined more closely and more calmly, and the "Russophobic" hysteria we have experienced during the past several years needs to be put aside for the sake of rational investigative inquiry -- and discovering how the Managerial State and global elites have attempted a "silent coup" against what's left of our republic.
These claims and the responses deserve respectful consideration and detailed responses:
- CLAIM: Russia "meddled" in the U.S. elections by conducting influence operations, including through social media.
All of the claims of Russian trolls that surfaced over the last few years (such as Russians using the Pokémon Go mobile game and sex toy ads to meddle in the elections – ) are so preposterous and contradictory that they virtually disprove themselves.
Not to mention the absurdity of the whole notion of 13 persons and 3 organizations (whichever country they might represent) charged on February 16, 2018, by Robert Mueller with criminally interfering with the elections, affecting in any way electoral processes in a country of more than 300 million people.
It is telling that when pressed about the scope of the alleged influence campaign, representatives of American social media companies give numbers, that even if they were valid (and there's no evidence of a connection to the Russian government), are so minuscule as to be basically non-existent. For example, Facebook has identified 3,000 Russia-linked ads costing a total of about $100,000. That's a miniscule number of ads and a fraction of Facebook's revenues, which totaled $28 billion. Facebook estimates that 126 million people might – the emphasis is on the word "might" – have seen this content. But this number represents just 0.004% of the content those people saw on the Facebook platform.
Significantly, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 11th, 2018 that "ad accounts linked to Russia" spent about $4,700 in advertising" to politically influence Americans during the 2016 presidential election season.
To further cast doubt on the allegations, an American watchdog group "Campaign for Accountability" ("CFA") admitted on September 4th, 2018, that it deliberately posted propaganda materials on Google disguised as "Russian hackers from the Internet Research Agency" to check how they would be filtered for "foreign interference". Google officials then accused the CFA as having ties to a rival tech company "Oracle". In other words, corporate intrigues disguised as "Russian interference".
As American media has admitted, out of several dozen pre-election rallies supposedly organized by Russians, Special Counsel Mueller mentions in his indictment that only a couple actually appear to have successfully attracted anyone, and those that did were sparsely attended and, almost without exception, in deep-red enclaves that would have voted for Trump anyway .
Amidst all the hysteria about the alleged Russian meddling it is worth reading various research studies which show, quoting "The Washington Post", that it is Americans, in particular our intelligence service, that peddle disinformation and hate speech.
According to Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, the scale and scope of domestic disinformation is much larger than any foreign influence operation. And academics from the Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy document in their study that there had been major spikes in outright fabrication and misleading information proliferating online before the 2018 U.S. election. A "significant portion" of the disinformation appeared to come from Americans, not foreigners, the Harvard researchers said.
- CLAIM:Russian hackers accessed computer servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked materials through Wikileaks and other intermediaries
As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin noted in his interview with NBC on June 5, 2017, when flatly denying any allegations of Russia interfering in internal affairs of the U.S., that today's technology is such that the final internet address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. It is possible to set up any entity that may indicate one source when, in fact, the source is completely different .
No evidence has been presented linking Russia to leaked emails. In fact, there are credible studies arguing that DNC servers are much more likely to have been breached by someone with immediate and physical access. In 2017 a group of former officers of the U.S. intelligence community, members of the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" (VIPS), met with then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to present their findings.
Those findings demonstrated using forensic analysis that the DNC data was copied at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ( , , ), thus suggesting that it was more likely a removable storage device used.
Another counterargument to the "Russian hackers" claim is that the DNC files published by Wikileaks were initially stored under the FAT (File Allocation System) method which is not related to internet transfers and can only be forwarded to an external device such as a thumb drive.
It is also suspicious that the DNC prohibited the FBI from examining the servers. Instead, a third-party tech firm was hired, "Crowd Strike", which is known for peddling the "Russian interference" claims. And soon enough it, indeed, announced that "Russian malware" has been found, but again no solid evidence was produced.
According to the respected former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the indictment by the Mueller team on July 13, 2018 of the 12 supposed Russian operatives was a politically motivated fraud . As Ritter explains, Mueller seems to have borrowed his list from an organizational chart of a supposed Russian military intelligence unit, contained in a classified document from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political Entities", which was published by The Intercept online. As stated in that document, this is just a subjective judgement, not a known fact. Ritter concludes, that this is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests as existing to support its indictment.
Moreover, it is telling that the indictment was released just before the meeting between President Putin and Trump in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, seemingly as if the aim was to intentionally derail the bilateral summit.
- CLAIM: Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
As concluded in the summary of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, the investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia
If the Mueller team, having all the resources of the U.S. government, after 22 months of work, many millions of dollars spent , more than 2800 subpoenas issued, nearly 500 search warrants and 500 witness interviews, didn't find any evidence of "collusion", it is simply because there was never any. The whole claim of collusion was launched and peddled by the same group of Democrats, liberal-leaning media and the so-called "Never Trump Republicans", as it became clear that Donald Trump had real chances of winning the election. And later it morphed into a campaign to derail the newly-elected President agenda, including his efforts to mitigate the damage done to U.S.-Russian relations.
- CLAIM: Hacking of American political institutions was personally ordered by the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This claim is based on nothing else but the infamous fraudulent "Steele Dossier" , paid for by political opponents [i.e., the Hilary Clinton campaign] of Donald Trump, and wild conjectures that "nothing in Russia happens without Putin's approval" .
Needless to say, zero proof is presented. By the same logic, nothing in the U.S. happens without the President's approval. For example, is he also responsible for Edward Snowden? After all, Mr. Snowden was doing work for the U.S. intelligence services. Or the deaths of all the civilians killed abroad by U.S. drone strikes? Every minute detail approved by the President?
- CLAIM: Russia did not cooperate with the U.S. in tracing the source of the alleged hacking.
Russia has repeatedly offered to set up a professional and de-politicized dialogue on international information security only to be rebuffed by the U.S. State Department. For instance, following the discussion between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Hamburg on July 7, 2017, Russia forwarded to the U.S. a proposal to reestablish a bilateral working group on cyber threats which would have been a perfect medium to discuss American concerns. Moreover, during his meeting with Donald Trump in Helsinki on July 17, 2018, Vladimir Putin offered to allow U.S. representatives to be present at an interrogation of the Russian citizens who were previously accused by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller of being guilty of electoral interference. Furthermore, in February 2019 the Russian government suggested publishing bilateral correspondence on the subject of unsanctioned access to U.S. electronic networks, which was conducted between Washington and Moscow through the Nuclear Threat Reduction Centers in the period from October 2016 to the end of January 2017.
Needless to say, all Russian offers were rejected. A conclusion is naturally reached that American State Department officials have little interest in hearing anything that contradicts their own narrative or the discredited version of the CIA.
- CLAIM: Russia is interfering in elections all over the world
No credible evidence has been produced not only of Russia's supposed meddling in the U.S. political processes, but to support similar allegations made by the U.S. in respect to other countries. For example, former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster insinuated that Russia was interfering in the Mexican presidential elections of 2018. However, Mexican officials, including the president of the Mexican Senate Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, and Ambassador to Russia Norma Pensado during a press conference in Moscow in February, 2018, debunked this baseless claim.
Another example of fake news were reports saying that U.S. was increasingly convinced that Russia hacked French election on May 9, 2017. However, on June 1, 2017, the head of the French government's cyber security agency said no trace was found of the claimed Russian hacking group behind the attack. On the other hand, the history of U.S. interfering in other countries' elections is well documented by American sources (see: ).
For example, a Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, has scoured the historical record and found 81 examples of U.S. election influence operations from 1946- to 2000. Often cited examples include Chile in 1964, Guyana in 1968, Nicaragua in 1990, Yugoslavia in 2000, Afghanistan in 2009, Ukraine in 2014, not to mention Russia in 1996! And how else could the current situation in Ukraine and Venezuela be described, with U.S. representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker openly pressuring Ukrainian voters to support the incumbent , and Washington possibly plotting a coup in Caracas?
- CLAIM: The lawsuit of the Democratic National Committee against the Russian Federation related to "interference in the election" has a legal standing.
The DNC filed a civil lawsuit on April 20, 2018 against the Russian Federation and other entities and individuals. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the Russian Federation; the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU); the GRU operative using the pseudonym "Guccifer 2.0"; Aras Iskenerovich Agalarov; Emin Araz Agalarov; Joseph Mifsud; WikiLeaks; Julian Assange; the Trump campaign (formally "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc."); Donald Trump, Jr.; Paul Manafort; Roger Stone; Jared Kushner; George Papadopoulos; Richard W. Gates; and unnamed defendants sued as John Does 1–10. The DNC's complaint accuses the Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks.
Even irrespective of the fact that there was no "interference" in the first place, the case has no legal standing. Exercise of U.S. jurisdiction over the pending case with respect to the Russian Federation is a violation of the international law, specifically, violation of jurisdictional immunities of the Russian Federation arising from the principle of the sovereign equality of states.
- CLAIM: Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak was a spy.
In March of 2017 U.S. media began libeling Sergey Kislyak a "top spy and spy-recruiter" This preposterous claim was based on nothing but his contacts with Trump confidant Senator Jeff Sessions – carrying out work any ambassador would do. Per the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, among core diplomatic functions is ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state, and that certainly includes openly meeting leaders of Congress on Capitol Hill. Even former CIA Director John McLaughlin noted that Mr. Kislyak is an experienced diplomat, not a spy.
- CLAIM: Russian Embassy retreat in Maryland was an intelligence base
Among the unlawful acts that U.S. administrations undertook was the expropriation of a legal Russian property in Maryland, a summer retreat near the Chesapeake Bay under the pretext it was used for intelligence gathering. But where is the supposed-treasure trove of alleged spy equipment that U.S. authorities reportedly found there? Why not show them publicly to back up the claim? After the expropriation and the claims, not a word – silence.
The retreat, "dacha" as Russians would call it, was bought by the former Soviet Union in 1972. Since then, it was used for recreation, including hosting a children's summer camp and regularly entertaining American visitors. One of the more popular events was the stop-over during the annual Chesapeake Regatta, completed with an expansive tour of the property. Presumably U.S. intelligence services could have used this for years to inspect the property. Why was nothing ever mentioned before the Obama Administration action?
- CLAIM: The meeting in Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016 between Trump campaign officials and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was to discuss compromising materials that Russian had on Hillary Clinton.
According to testimony provided to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Veselnitskaya focused on explaining the illicit activities of U.S.-British investor Bill Browder, wanted in Russia for crimes, and brought attention to the adverse effects of the so-called "Magnitskiy Act", adopted by U.S. Congress in 2012 and lobbied for by Browder.
- CLAIM: Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with Russians in Prague to "collude".
It was reported in American media that the Justice Department special counsel had evidence that Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly made a trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign to meet with Russian representatives, a fact also mentioned in the discredited "Steele Dossier". This was given as further evidence of "collusion". But Cohen vehemently denied this – under oath. Passport records indicate that he never was in Prague. He was actually on vacation with his son at the supposed time. Given that he publicly turned on his former boss and still denied the fact of ever going to Prague disproves this claim further.
- CLAIM: Former member of the Trump campaign team Carter Page was a Russian intelligence asset.
According to members of Congress and journalistic investigations, the redacted declassified documents of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) show that the main source used by U.S. counterintelligence to justify spying on Mr. Page was the fraudulent so-called "Steele Dossier".
Thus, Mr. Page for obvious reasons was not accused by the team of Robert Mueller of being involved in a "Russian conspiracy".
- CLAIM: On August 22, 2018, The Democratic National Committee filed a claim with the FBI, accusing the "Russian hackers" of infiltrating its electoral database.
Several days later members of the Democratic Party admitted that it was a "false alarm", as it was simply a security check-up performed at the initiative of the Democratic Party's affiliate in Michigan.
- CLAIM: On August 8, 2018 U.S. Senator Bill Nelson accused Russia of breaching the infrastructure of the voter registration systems in several local election offices of Florida.
Florida's Department of State spokesperson, Sarah Revell, stated on August 9, 2018, that Florida's government had not received any evidence from competent authorities that Florida's voting systems or election records had been compromised. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI also could not confirm in any manner the accusations.
- CLAIM: In September, 2017 the U.S. media, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, accused Russia of "cyberattacks" on electoral infrastructure in 21 states during the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
On September 27, 2017, Wisconsin and California authorities stated that their electoral systems were not targeted by cyberattacks. On November 12, 2017, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in a CBS interview that the "hackers' activity" had no significant consequences and did not influence the outcome of the elections. And, indeed, the source of those attacks was not clear.
- CLAIM: Russia meddled in the Alabama 2017 Senate elections to help the Republican candidate.
Despite the initial claims , it turned out that a group of Democratic tech experts decided to imitate so-called "Russian tactics" in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate racе. Even more jarring is the fact that one participant in the "Alabama project", Jonathon Morgan, is chief executive of "New Knowledge", a cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia's social media operations in the 2016 election that was released in 2018 by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Once again, we have one of the main private sector players in hyping the Russian threat caught red-handed.
- CLAIM: Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's presidential campaign chairman, was a secret link to Russian intelligence.
Trump's former campaign chairman was hit with two indictments from Mueller's office. However, even as American media notes, both cases have nothing to do with Russia and stemmed from his years as a political consultant for the Ukrainian government and his failure to pay taxes on the millions he earned, his failure to report the foreign bank accounts he used to stash that money, and his failure to report his work to the US government. In his second case in Virginia, he was also charged with committing bank fraud to boost his assets when the Ukraine work dried up.
In fact, serious concerns have been raised in the U.S. that it was Ukrainian officials who tried to influence the 2016 elections by leaking compromising materials on Mr. Manafort.
The Ukrainian connection is also prevalent in the case of money transferred to accounts of American politicians. For instance, according to a "New York Times" article, Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk donated over 10 million dollars to the "Clinton Foundation while just 150 thousand dollars to the "Trump Foundation".
- CLAIM: Russia compromised the Vermont power grid.
On December 31, 2016, "The Washington Post", accused "Russian hackers" of compromising the Vermont power grid. The local company, "Burlington Electric", allegedly traced a malware code in a laptop of one of its employees. It was stated that the same "code" was used to hack the Democratic Party servers in 2016. However, the "Wordfence" cybersecurity firm checked "Burlington Electric" for hacking, and said that the malware code was openly available, for instance, on a web-site of Ukrainian hackers . The attackers were using IP-addresses from across the world. "The Washington Post" later admitted that conclusions on Russia's involvement were false.
- CLAIM: Russian Alfa Bank was used as a secret communication link with the Trump campaign .
In October 2016 a new "accusation" appeared, alleging that a message exchange between the Alfa Bank server and Trump organizations indicated a "secret" Trump – Russia communication channel.
However, the FBI concluded the supposed messaging was marketing newsletters and/or spam .
- CLAIM: Russia cracked voter registration systems during the 2016 U.S. elections.
In July 2016 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security accused Russia of gaining unauthorized access to electronic voter registration systems in Arizona. But on April 8, 2018, "Reuters", referring to a high-ranking U.S. administration official, wrote there was no proof Russia had anything to do with the mentioned cyberattack.
- CLAIM: Russian Embassy bank transactions were linked to "election interference".
American publication "Buzzfeed" repeatedly claimed that U.S. authorities flagged Russian Embassy financial transfers as suspicious, many of them dated around the 2016 election. In reality, the media outlet, by twisting the facts and placing them out of context, made routine banking transactions – salary transfers, payments to contractors – look nefarious.
It is not uncommon for embassy personnel to receive larger payouts, transfer or withdraw larger sums of money at the end of their work. Furthermore, leaking of confidential banking information of persons and organizations protected by diplomatic immunity raised concerns about the likely involvement of security services.
The arrest in October 2018 of a U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network official, charged with leaking information both about the Russian Embassy accounts and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, provides further proof to the theory of political skullduggery.
* * *
Most of these responses have not been fully examined or addressed by major media, nor, for that matter, by Fox News, dominated as it is by an almost instinctive Neoconservative Russophobia (the one possible exception being Tucker Carlson).
For the American Left, since the collapse of Communism and the growth of a traditionalist nationalism (under Vladimir Putin), Russia has become a convenient target. When the Soviets were in power prior to 1991, the USSR was seen as a "progressive" presence in the world, even if by the requirements of American politics the Left was forced to make ritualistic condemnations of the more extreme elements of Soviet statecraft. Now that post-Communist Russia bans same sex marriage, glorifies the traditional family, and the conservative Russian Orthodox Church occupies a special position of esteem and prominence, that admiration has turned to fear and loathing. And that Russia and its president have been viewed as favorable to the hated Donald Trump doubly confirms that hostility and targeting.
For the dominant Neoconservatives and many Republicans, contemporary Russia is seen as "anti-democratic," "reactionary," and a threat to American world hegemony (and the refusal to bow to that hegemony, whether economically, politically, or culturally). Indeed, as a major intellectual force, Neoconservatism owes much of its origins to Eastern European and Russia Jews, many of whose ancestors were at direct odds with the old pre-1917 Tsarist state. That animus, those nightmares of pogroms and oppression, have never completely subsided. A modern traditionalist, Orthodox Russia is viewed as antithetical to their more liberal, even Leftwing ideas (e.g., increasing "conservative" acceptance of same sex marriage, "moderate" feminism, and a whole panoply of "forward looking" views on civil rights issues -- all of which are present on Fox News.)
Memory of "the bad old days" has never disappeared.
None of this history should prevent a close examination of the current accusations against Russia, nor our search for the truth. Much -- perhaps the future of Western civilization itself -- depends on it.
Apr 28, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Tenzin Nordron , 1 week agoLois Odea , 1 week ago
Trump's no embarrassment. He's the accurate representative of the ruthless, con-artistry of the Empire of Chaos.mistor Whiskers , 1 week ago
Two great men. Thank you both for bringing truth.JoanneLG1960 , 1 week ago
I've been calling it vodkagate since day one and just watching these propagandists getting drunk on it.IAM REAL , 1 week ago
What a treat!Larkinchance , 1 week ago
Aaron Mate and Greenwald are the best of the best.Dan Harris , 1 week ago
In case after case, Maddow and others in corporate media used crafted language that was speculation designed to appear as cold hard facts to the the viewer. This was no only bad reporting, It was a conspiracy of sorts. Maddow regularly would say, "If Russia did this, it would be an attack on the US..." Leaving the viewer with the impression that "Russia did this!". Then she would go to stir the cauldron for war.. This rises to the level of a crime.real eyes realize real lies , 1 week ago
Aaron Mate is the absolute perfect foil to Jimmy when he is on the Jimmy Dore show. It is hilarious.Sandra Ellis , 1 week ago
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!Larkinchance , 1 week ago
Perfect!!! So glad you had Aaron on.The One and 0nly , 1 week ago
Since when is Hilary Clinton on the left? Since when are the are e-mails of the democratic party protected government secrets? Are the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs important? Is it strange that after 18 long years of war there is no anti-war movement? Are the people reporting on Cable News real journalists? Well done Aaron and Chris!John Harrison , 1 week ago
Israel gateSandor Daroci , 1 week ago
I honestly am beginning to believe the Democratic leadership actually likes having Donald Trump as PresidentDan Campbell , 1 week ago
wow, go Aaron.ewa wyso , 1 week ago
I will try to resist the temptation to look in the comments section, while listening. If any interview warrants full attention, it's Aaron and Chris.Sean , 1 week ago
Yay! Aaron MatÉ !!!Wretch Gunk , 1 week ago
2 of my favorite journalists join to talk facts. Love it!robb , 1 week ago
democrats would rather Turmp be president than Bernie, they will throw the election before they let Bernie create change... but then even if he is elected, it wont do much good with corporate shills in congress in senatePas Oli , 1 week ago
I enjoy listening to Aaron, a person of integrity and also a down to earth, interesting journalist who has worked hard to uncover the truth on this subject and knows it backwards and forwards. I like when he can't help but laugh at certain absurdities in mainstream media coverage of Russiagate.Ivette Correa , 1 week ago
Collusion? More like ConFusion GPS
Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!
Apr 28, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Shannon Sun/Moon Virgo , 1 week agoB. Greene , 1 week ago
Fabulous interview! Thank you both for your extraordinary integrity & courage ❤ Free Julian Assange ✊❤MrB1923 , 1 week ago
More honest journalism in 28 minutes than in 3 years of MSNBC or Fox.Steven William Bayless Parks , 1 week ago
THIS is journalism. EVERYTHING else is propaganda.S Douglas , 1 week ago
It 's incredible that we have to watch Russian TV to find out what's going on in the USA.Winston Smith in Oceania , 1 week ago
It's great to see some non-propagandist journalism.Mike2020able , 1 week ago
Big fan of Aaron Maté here!J.L. Goodman , 1 week ago
Chomsky : ' Israel, not Russia, interferes With US Election 'Amy Marie , 1 week ago
I've got to admit,I get a massive dopamine rush hearing these two sane, intelligent, critical thinkers, skillfully dissect this convoluted quadrafuck that has wasted some much of our precious time. I literally feel washed clean for a moment.Tertiary Adjunct , 1 week ago (edited)
Keep up the awesome work Aaron n RT😉Steven Yourke , 1 week ago
RT, give Aaron a show.Scott Turner , 1 week ago (edited)
You can count the number of real journalists left in the US on two hands. Here are two of the best and the bravest. Thank you, RT, for providing us with a platform for real journalists.Joy Mazumdar , 1 week ago
Thanks for this. Aaron Maté and Chris Hedges keep many people somewhat sane in an insane media world. Depressed, but at least somewhat sane. lolLee Vanderheiden , 1 week ago
as an outsider.....i view the whole thing as a smokescreen...........keeping people occupied while planning & carrying out worse things that are being done in the dark..........Matthew Iverson , 1 week ago
Thanks, Chris. What a great interview. Aaron Mate' is an up and coming star journalist!Ilia Pagan , 1 week ago
Omg I love you guys! Omg I could cry!Boris Tabare Ag , 1 week ago
Aaron Mate's courageous stance regarding Palestinians deserves all my respect and support. His analysts of Rusiagate and all the fanfare associated with the so called investigations seems most accurate.TheJohnswa , 1 week ago
Aaron Maté: the man who killed Luke Harding!!!Brooks Rogers , 1 week ago
Maddow has zero integrity leftJesse Birkett , 1 week ago
Been a long time fan of Hedges and recent fan of Mate. Great conversation between these two critical thinkers so scarce these troubled days.
This is one the best episodes On Contact has ever done.
Apr 28, 2019 | inforos.ru
Mueller report proved that Russiagate was one long series of hoaxes designed to discredit Trump and pave the way for his impeachment
It's finally official -- Trump and his team didn't "collude" with Russia like the Democrats and their supporters incessantly claimed for nearly the past three years. Positive coverage of candidate Trump's promising foreign policy platform by Russian international media and truthful reporting about Clinton's aggressive one don't amount to "hacking" an election, nor do some internet researchers from Russia supposedly sharing some political memes on Facebook. It's now been revealed that Russiagate was one long series of hoaxes designed to discredit Trump and pave the way for his impeachment after it first failed to stop him from winning the presidency. Like the American leader himself has said on several occasions already, Russiagate was an unconstitutional coup attempt against the country's democratically elected leadership, which deserves to be analyzed more in depth.
Russia, and specifically President Putin, were presented as the ultimate global bogeyman after Crimea's 2014 reunification and Moscow's 2015 anti-terrorist military intervention in Syria changed the balance of power around the world and unquestionably ushered in the multipolar era after two and a half decades of American unipolarity.
It was therefore thought by the ruling anti-Trump faction of the US' permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") at the time that they could easily convince the electorate to vote against the seemingly "anti-systemic" political insurgent by implying that he's a "Russian puppet" and then later, after that didn't work, manufacturing so-called "evidence" purporting to prove this through unverified fake news claims designed to defame him.
Apr 18, 2019 | larouchepac.com
On Thursday morning, Attorney General William Barr is scheduled to release the Mueller report, with redactions, according to laws regarding security and the privacy of Grand Jury proceedings. While the Trump haters and conspirators are preparing various operations to keep Russiagate going, despite the report's exoneration of Trump's imagined "collusion," the reality that the British ran the entire operation, as identified from the beginning by EIR, is now bursting out into the open, and is threatening to be the subject of criminal investigations in the Department of Justice and in the Congress.
The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross on Tuesday ran an article titled: "Former British Spymaster Has Flown Under the Radar in Russia Probe, Despite Links to Key Figures." He names Richard Deerlove, MI6 chief from 1999 to 2004, as a key operative working with fellow MI6 operative Christopher Steele, the author of the now discredited dossier on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia. Deerlove was also directly involved in setting up several Trump Campaign operatives for fake links to Russia (George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Gen. Flynn), together with British intelligence assets Joseph Mifsud and CIA asset Stefan Halper, a close ally of Deerlove at Cambridge.
Meanwhile, Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Tuesday that he will immediately investigate three cases of suspected "set ups," efforts to create fake connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, all directly run by British operatives: the Mifsud role with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer in falsely connecting George Papadopoulos to Russian spies; Halper and Deerlove setting up Gen. Flynn with fake Russian connections; and the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, set up by the slimy British operative Rob Goldstone.
What's more, the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) issued a public Memorandum for President Trump on Tuesday, called "The Fly in the Mueller Ointment," warning him that the Mueller report, despite finding no evidence of collusion, maintains the lie that the Russians hacked leading Democratic Party computers and provided their emails to Wikileaks, falsely described as a Russian front. Detailing their forensic proof that the emails were downloaded, not hacked, the VIPS warn the President that if these lies are allowed to stand, the idea that Trump was elected due to Russian "interference" in the election will remain, "and that melody will linger on for the rest of your presidency, unless you seize the moment.... You are the President, and there may be no better time than now to face them down." (see Bill Binney interview with LPAC.)
... ... ...
Apr 22, 2019 | larouchepac.com
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has written a 448-page fictional novel, grounded in treason, about the British/Obama Administration intelligence hoax known as Russiagate. It is intended to preoccupy your mind for the next two years, at least through the 2020 elections. It is intended to stir your passions to support your absolutely mad Representative or Senator in enacting further sanctions and supporting the British drive to overthrow Putin's government in Russia based on fictional events which, for the most part, never happened.
The British sponsored and oriented intelligence services that sponsored this hoax have also started a campaign to ensure that the same mad passions will destroy Donald Trump's quest for new and peaceful relationships with China. Congressional investigations based on the "road map" provided by Robert Mueller are supposed to provide, on your taxpayer dollar, possible impeachment and, at the very least, opposition research for the 2020 Presidential campaign. This would fulfill the British vow, openly set forth in the December 2018 House of Lords Report, "British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order," that Donald Trump must not have a second term.
But, most of all, it is intended to get you to doubt what is coming next. The President's allies have promised an investigation of the investigators and a full accounting of how this sordid affair came to be. As Conrad Black explains in the National Interest , what is now known is that
"senior intelligence and FBI and Justice Department officials lied under oath to Congress, or lied to federal officials in order to influence the result, and then reverse the result, of a presidential election. In terms of subversion of the highest constitutional process, the selection of the president and vice president of the United States, this sort of activity, that Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, former attorney general Loretta Lynch and others appear to have engaged in, is the last stop before there are tanks on the White House lawn and military control of the media outlets. Mueller, having failed to do anything to address the real crisis that threatened the country, failed altogether, and compounded his failure by his sadistic entrapment of General Michael Flynn, and hounding of Paul Manafort and others, far beyond what was necessary or excusable, in an effort to extort a false inculpation of the president."
As most know by now, the first part of the Mueller report concludes that there was no collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump's campaign to swing the election to Donald Trump. This conclusion occurred despite thousands upon thousands of hours of fake media claims, fed by British and American intelligence leaks, which made it an article of fanatical religious faith to many, that Donald Trump was a Putin dupe. According to Mueller's report, while the Russians tried endlessly to infiltrate and steer the Trump Campaign, they didn't succeed. Undaunted, Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on television on April 18 to claim that Mueller found "passive collusion." That is not an unfair characterization of the McCarthyite premises of Mueller's report. According to Mueller, investigation of an American Presidential campaign was justified because Trump refused to toe the British line on Putin and Russia.
Here is how Mueller blithely reports it:
"On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump declared his intent to seek nomination as the Republican candidate for President. By early 2016, he distinguished himself among Republican candidates by speaking of closer ties with Russia, saying he would get along well with Russian President Vladimir Putin, questioning whether the NATO alliance was obsolete, and praising Putin as a 'strong leader.' The press reported that Russian political analysts and commentators perceived Trump as favorable to Russia."
Beginning in February 2016, the Report continues, the "press" began to report the connections of various campaign figures with Russia, namely, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page. According to Mueller's report, Trump pursued WikiLeaks during the campaign regarding the timing of further releases of Clinton Campaign and State Department documents, he said that he doubted that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta, he falsely claimed that he had no business dealings in Russia, and the Campaign was involved in changing a plank in the Republican Party platform about providing lethal assistance to Ukraine. Contrary to this lying account by Saint Mueller, we know that the "press" were being steered by a British intelligence originated propaganda campaign aimed at preventing any U.S. accommodation with Russia.
See Barbara Boyd's 3-Part Series on the British Role in Russiagate
Now that we know that the President is not a traitor, can we move on to address the thousands of opioid deaths, adolescent and other suicides, flooded farmlands, and crumbling infrastructure which have been pushed aside as we were trapped within the walls of this British created delusion? Well, no, according to Mueller and his Congressional toadies, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff. Nadler, who looks and acts like a venomous toad, stuffing himself into over-sized suits which have that oh so subtle Manhattan mafia cut, vows to spend from now until 2020 redoing the Russiagate investigation. Schiff, who has constantly propounded the most fictitious crap possible about Russiagate, is just too invested to ever be sane, if he ever was. Thus, the second part of Mueller's report attempts to seamlessly switch the anti-Trump political narrative by presenting an entirely novel theory of obstruction of justice in which the President knew he was innocent, while those investigating him, knowing he was innocent, sought to exploit Trump's emotions as they rolled a full scale coup right over him, hoping he would cross the line into illegal acts. He did not, according to both Attorney General Barr and Mueller's boss throughout this escapade, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller also acknowledges this by saying he can't charge Trump with obstruction of justice. But Mueller also takes a cheap shot, designed to inflame the Congress and the public, saying he cannot "exonerate" the President either. In doing so, he impermissibly shifts the burden of proof, under our Constitution, to imply that Trump must now prove his innocence. This is, of course, reminiscent of the Star Chamber.
When Donald Trump was informed by Jeff Sessions that a Special Counsel was being appointed, he said, according to Mueller,Perversely, this absolutely true statement by the President, borne out by months of an insane inquisition which crippled his ability to act, is cited by Robert Mueller's crew of biased prosecutors for the proposition that the President repeatedly skirted obstructing justice. On April 17, Attorney General Barr said that Donald Trump confronted an unprecedented situation at the beginning of his presidency. The President was attempting to form an administration, while his own intelligence community was investigating him as an agent of a foreign power. Barr might have added that Trump knew -- and everyone else knew -- that "collusion" nonsense was just that. They knew it all along. In such circumstances, there was never any ability, in reality, to charge obstruction of justice, which requires a corrupt intent or motive. There can be no corrupt intent or motive where a President believes, rightly, that he is innocent, that he is being framed up, and that a coup is underway. He fights back, to preserve both the Presidency and the Constitution itself, breaking the rules of what Saint Robert Mueller considers to be appropriate conduct by those he targets – don't say or do anything, just let us slice you up. All the while, the Mueller report makes clear, Trump's emotions about the coup are being recorded and/or falsely portrayed, minute by minute by those who would sell him out -- some as traitors within, others, if only to save themselves. That is the reality. It was never obstruction of justice. It was a psyop against the President attempting to drive him mad.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."
The British, Not the Russians, Tried to Swing the 2016 Election
Mueller makes three significant claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election. First, page after page of his report attempts to paint an amateurish and small bore social media campaign conducted by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian internet marketing and click bait operation, as exercising a hugely powerful lure on the American mind. Despite Mueller's indictment of the IRA, which is pending now in Washington, D.C., and despite British intelligence's five year fixation on the IRA as the essence of newfound Russian powers in hybrid warfare, this is a hoax. Aaron Maté , Gareth Porter and others have demonstrated, conclusively, that the IRA spent minimal amounts of money on Facebook and Google in 2016, for a campaign which barely mentioned either candidate. Only 11% of the IRA activity even occurred during the election period.
The IRA effort spent a grand total of $46,000 on Facebook Ads, compared to $81 million by the Trump and Clinton campaigns combined, and $4,700 on Google platforms. Its most liked Facebook post was a gun-toting image of Yosemite Sam; its most shared Instagram post said, "Click here if you like Jesus." Another favored meme featured Jesus counseling a young man how to stop masturbating. Otherwise, the IRA's campaign was dedicated to creating revenue from themed t-shirts and LGBT positive sex toys. Mueller never explains how this ad content impacted the election in any way, nor could he.
Mueller next focuses on the alleged Russian military intelligence hacks of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, for which he has indicted 12 Russian GRU officers, secure in the knowledge that they will never appear in a U.S. courtroom to contest the charges. The first fact lost in the sauce here is the fact that the files the Russians allegedly sent to WikiLeaks for publication demonstrated, truthfully, that Hillary Clinton was a craven tool of Wall Street and that her campaign was illegally rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders's insurgent campaign. Further, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, led by former NSA Technical Director William Binney and former NSA cryptologist Ed Loomis, have exploded Mueller's entire theory that the Russians hacked the DNC. They conducted forensic studies demonstrating that what Mueller says about Guccifer 2.0 is fraudulent and that the claim that a GRU hack of the DNC computers resulted in the WikiLeaks releases does not square with any science known currently to man. The download speeds and file metadata point to a thumb drive or similar storage device and a human source, rather than a Russian cyber attack conducted over the internet.
You might also ask why Julian Assange and/or WikiLeaks were not indicted in Mueller's grand GRU conspiracy indictment . Instead, Assange was indicted on a highly dubious charge involving the 2010 Chelsea Manning leaks which may not even survive a challenge under the statute of limitations. Obviously, Mueller's proof of his indicted Russiagate conspiracy falls short. Indicting Assange for the claimed DNC and Podesta hack conspiracy would necessarily allow Assange to prove that the Russian hack never happened, as he has long contended. It would expose how James Comey and Senator Mark Warner intervened in Assange's early 2017 negotiations with the Justice Department, to ensure that the truth would never come out. It was Comey, after all, who never secured the DNC servers for FBI forensic analysis, relying instead on the forensics provided to him by Atlantic Council's Russia-hating CrowdStrike, the unreliable vendor to the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. And it was Comey, it is reliably claimed, who relentlessly pushed the Russiagate narrative even after his lead case agent told him after months of investigation, "there is no there, there." If Mueller pursued the logic of his own indictment and included Assange in his fabricated GRU conspiracy, it would also have exposed exactly what happened after Bill Binney met with then CIA Director Mike Pompeo at Donald Trump's direction on October 24, 2017, explaining exactly how the intelligence community was lying to the American President. Binney's offer to collaborate in demonstrating what actually happened with the DNC and John Podesta has been successfully blocked to date.
The last prong of Mueller's Russiagate plot involves all sorts of contacts with Russians who allegedly unsuccessfully reached out to the Trump campaign, in order to seduce them. Here the report just lies egregiously. We are told that Russiagate started as the result of a July 2016 report by the Australian Ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, to the FBI about a conversation he had with a 28 year old Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos, in London. According to Mueller, Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor with "connections to Russia" told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousands of Hillary Clinton's State Department emails, and Papadopoulos repeated this information in a meeting initiated by Downer. According to Mueller, when the DNC's computers were hacked, the former Australian Ambassador to London remembered his early 2016 meeting with Papadopoulos in which Papadopoulos recounted Mifsud's claim about Clinton's emails. This tidbit, according to Mueller, launched a full scale FBI counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. presidential nominee. As Attorney General Barr has pointed out, including in his testimony on Capitol Hill, investigating an American presidential candidate is "a very big deal" and the Mifsud/Papadopoulos/Australian Ambassador hearsay hardly serves as adequate justification or predication. This is particularly egregious since the FBI knew that Papadopoulos never repeated to anyone in the Trump Campaign what Mifsud told him. And Mifsud is also a British intelligence asset, not a Russian intelligence asset, as suggested by Mueller's rambling legal partisans.
Mueller, of course, never references the fact that Russiagate actually started way back in late 2015 when the British government started demanding Donald Trump's head because of his sane view of Russia, a fact acknowledged by Obama CIA chief John Brennan in his Congressional testimony.
Nor does Mueller reference the fact that MI6's Christopher Steele's dirty dossier was the driver of Russiagate and that Steele was a joint MI6, U.S. State Department, and FBI asset dating back to collaboration on the 2014 Ukraine coup conducted jointly by the Obama State Department, CIA, and British intelligence. The Ukraine coup began a British march toward regime change in Russia, risking nuclear war, a march which was rudely interrupted by the Brexit vote in Britain and by the candidacy and election of Donald Trump.
The real story, the one now being promised by Trump's allies and others, is that many of the alleged Russian outreach efforts cited in Mueller's report, such as multiple entrapment efforts conducted against Papadopoulos and Carter Page, as well as the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, were transparent British/State Department operations designed to plant and fabricate evidence, namely, Russian generated "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
Mueller completely avoided the real story, despite its public availability, in order to concoct his hit job. Each of these operations involved British intelligence personnel collaborating with Obama White House, the CIA and State Department. These entrapment efforts were designed as the pretext for creating and maintaining an FBI investigation. The FBI investigation in turn made the preposterous claims in Christopher Steele's dirty dossier, that Donald Trump had been compromised by the Russians, palatable to the journalists who repeated Steele's claims both before and after the election.
Like the Steele dossier itself, the dirt and allegedly Russian-sourced information about Putin and Trump did not originate with actual Russian "dirt" or with actual Russian sources. According to well-placed Congressional sources, Christopher Steele's main source for his dodgy dossier is a former Russian intelligence officer living in the United States. But, no former Russian intelligence officer lives in the United States without reporting to the CIA. That is just a simple fact. There is also evidence that the Trump Campaign was being flooded with FBI informants acting as "pretend" Russian agents as early as May. Mike Caputo has documented just such as approach by FBI informant and Russian criminal Henry Greenberg to himself and Roger Stone offering "dirt on Hillary Clinton." Papadopoulos claims that Sergei Millian, the alleged source of the infamous Ritz Hotel prostitute claim in Steele's dirty dossier, sat silently as Millian's friend told Papadopoulos that Millian was working for the FBI.
The Moscow Trump Tower project also consumes hundreds of words in Mueller's screed. It was created by long-time FBI and CIA informant Felix Sater and his childhood friend, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and was presented in emails by Sater in September of 2015 as a Russian project which would help elect Donald Trump President with Putin's assistance. It was pushed, and pushed, and pushed by Sater, whose agreement to become an informant, was signed by none other than Andrew Weissman, Mueller's chief henchman. Former CIA and State Department analyst Larry Johnson has fully demonstrated this chain of fabrications .
As for the last portion of Part I of Mueller's Report, portraying efforts to secure peace with Russia and in Ukraine during the transition as some sort of diabolical plot -- wow, just think about that. Can you seriously join Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller in treating efforts to establish the foundations for peace with Russia, as some form of criminal act? Or, as crazy former DNI Jim Clapper calls it, "passive collusion"? This is, of course, the same Jim Clapper who claims that Russians are genetically predisposed to attack the United States. As Professor Stephen Cohen, of NYU and Princeton, continues to reiterate, there are immense nuclear dangers in stoking hatred of Russia rather than seeking a just accommodation. Professor Cohen noted recently that in the history of election interventions by the United States into Russia, even if you accept all of Mueller's preposterous claims, what the Russians are accused of doing here is equivalent to jay-walking. Compare the publication of truthful information about Hillary Clinton rigging the Democratic primaries, a juvenile and largely ineffective social media campaign, and numerous attempts to improve U.S. Russian relations, with the $10 billion the Clinton Administration provided to re-elect Boris Yeltsin, in 1996, for example.Obstruction of Justice
Mueller's 250 page plus screed about obstruction of justice focuses on 10 "episodes" where he says the President almost crossed the line into what he considers to be obstructive conduct. Mind you, he admits that as opposed to most obstruction cases, there was no underlying crime which the President was trying to cover up. There were also never ever any acts like those Hillary Clinton's crew committed, such as smashing cell phones with hammers and BleachBitting computers. In fact, the White House gave the Special Counsel everything he asked for, including notes of President Trump's discussions with White House Counsel Don McGahn, over which Executive Privilege could rightly have been claimed -- and many lawyers believe such privilege should have been exercised. Mueller interviewed just about everyone in the White House and on the Trump Campaign, with the President's blessing and his urging them to "cooperate." From this cooperation, Mueller's minions concocted a hit job, designed to portray the President as unstable and irrational and out solely to protect himself, concealing derogatory facts from the American people in statements on his Twitter account and to the press. Nowhere, however, even in this entire rabid prosecutor's screed is there any act which the courts have recognized as obstruction of justice.
Instead, Mueller's argument is essentially this: "if you take all of this together, maybe it amounts to something, but I can't decide, so Congress should just stick the knife in already." There is not sufficient evidence to charge a crime, Mueller says, but Trump has also not proved his innocence.
Here's the CliffsNotes summary of the entire 448 pages: The President was under constant attack, including from within his own White House, in an obvious attempt to frame him up while claiming he was committing treason. He got angry and didn't sit silently by while Mueller and his minions tried to frame him up. He complained loudly. Sometimes he even asked his staff to figure out how to proclaim his innocence. Under no conceivable construction is that obstruction of justice.
Three incidents make the fraud in Mueller's tedious novel very clear. First, Mueller babbles on about the President's conduct concerning Michael Flynn's firing, but he never references that Michael Flynn had been targeted by the British authors of the Russiagate hoax, the circles of Sir Richard Dearlove and his friend Stefan Halper, way back in 2014. They falsely accused Flynn of a dalliance with Russian historian Svetlana Lokhova at a Cambridge event both attended. What really flipped the British out about Flynn, however, was his exposure of support for Al Qaeda and similar groups in Syria by both the U.S. and British governments. Flynn had been a target of FBI investigation and surveillance based on British demands for his head since early 2016, if not much earlier.
When Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia in the waning days of his Administration, in retaliation for what his intelligence chiefs claimed was Russian "interference" in the 2016 election, the sanctions included implantation of a Stuxnet type worm in Russian state infrastructure. This might be considered by the Russians as a very hot potential act of war. Flynn, the incoming National Security Adviser, had conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak to the effect that the Russians should not overreact to Obama's sanctions, among other things. These conversations were intercepted, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary McCord of the National Security Division at DOJ, along with Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, plotted how to set Flynn up for undermining Obama's dangerous threats and actions.
First, someone from a tight circle who had viewed these transcripts, leaked the classified transcripts to the Washington Post's David Ignatius who wrote a loud column about Flynn colluding with the Russians to undermine Obama. That leak was a felony. McCabe then called Flynn as the article hit, saying that he was sending over two agents to talk to him about what this was about and telling him that involving any lawyers would be an encumbrance to a relaxed conversation. Flynn couldn't remember certain things the agents asked him about. They had the transcript of Flynn's conversation and never showed it to him. In the course of the interview, Flynn made statements at variance with what he was known to have said in the transcripts. Nonetheless, the agents themselves said that Flynn had not deliberately lied to them when they reported back to the FBI.
After Flynn was fired for lying to Vice President Pence and others about the Kisylak conversations, FBI Director James Comey claims that President Trump pulled him aside and said he "hoped" Comey would let the Flynn thing go because Flynn was a good guy. The maniacal Comey insists that the President's "hope" was an "order." Comey, the fabricator, had previously insisted that the President's alleged request for "loyalty," at a point where all of Washington was talking about RESIST members covertly acting against the President from within his Administration, was somehow equivalent to a mafia induction ceremony. Michael Flynn was subsequently convicted by Mueller of lying to the FBI in his White House interview despite the fact that the original agents concluded that no such lying even occurred. This was part of a coerced plea deal resulting from the fact that Flynn was bankrupted by the legal fees necessary to defend himself against Mueller's inquisition, and threats by Mueller to indict Flynn's son.
Then there is the Comey firing itself. Comey's Congressional testimony, which Mueller never mentions, lays out that each time Comey met with the President he returned to compose contemporaneous memos of his conversations and to plan future encounters with a close group of associates who he characterized as a "murder board." Such activities clearly indicate that Comey was engaged in attempting to set the President up. Comey told Congress and Trump that he was not under investigation in Russiagate but refused to tell the public that, knowing full well that the President felt it was completely hindering his ability to act, particularly with respect to Russia.
Mueller does disclose that, from the beginning, Trump railed against Comey because he was blocking what Trump he wanted to do with Russia on trade and ISIS. In fact, Trump dictated a letter to Steven Miller firing Comey because he would not tell the public the truth about Russiagate and because it was hindering his ability to deal with Russia. Trump's letter was rejected by White House staff, including White House Counsel Don McGahn, who came up with the idea of firing Comey based on Comey's misconduct in the Clinton investigation. The President repeated the real reasons he was firing Comey publicly and almost immediately after Rod Rosenstein's letter detailing Comey's misconduct in the Clinton investigation was released, and did so again, in an oval office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak. This is hardly the concealment associated with obstruction of justice.
Furthermore, the firestorm following Comey's firing illuminated the level of plotting against the President at the top levels of the Department of Justice -- Rod Rosenstein seriously offered to wear a wire to record the President and participated in discussions centered on organizing the cabinet to orchestrate the President's removal. Mueller never mentions any of this in his report. Instead he adopts, wholesale, James Comey's claim that Trump fired him to hinder the Russia investigation, despite the fact that the investigation was never hindered. Mueller also never references Comey's leaks of classified materials to a friend for media publication, in order to trigger Mueller's own appointment as Special Counsel, or that everyone already knew, at that point, that there was "no there, there" with respect to collusion with Russia.
Instead, the game was on to frame the President, to build the case Comey had not been able to make about obstruction of justice. This proceeded through a series of calculated provocations and media leaks all designed to provoke the President into overreaction.
One of these is found in the episode involving the so-called attempt to "fire Mueller" which the media and Congress are salivating about. According to Mueller's report, Trump called White House Counsel Don McGahn and told him to raise Mueller's conflicts of interest with the Department of Justice and -- according to McGahn -- that Mueller could not be Special Counsel.
This call occurred soon after the Washington Post published a leak that the President himself was under investigation by Mueller for obstruction of justice. McGahn construed Trump's words as an order to fire Mueller, even though, by his own account, no such order to fire Mueller was stated. McGahn claims that he immediately decided to resign, although he never informed the President of this. No call was ever placed to the Justice Department, Mueller was not fired, and Trump never repeated what he allegedly said on one heated occasion to Don McGahn. Based on his drama queen account of this alleged aborted attempt at some undetermined act of obstruction, however, McGahn is being hailed by the anti-Trump media as a modern Sir Thomas More.
The President denies ever saying anything like this and there is considerable evidence in the Mueller report itself demonstrating that Trump's repeatedly pronounced distrust of McGahn was fully justified. The kicker here is that even if Trump had followed through and fired Mueller, he would have been within his Constitutional powers to do so. There would have been plenty of political heat, but no obstruction of justice, despite McGahn's ridiculous fantasy that he was being asked to re-enact Nixon's Saturday night massacre. Mueller's report otherwise shows White House Counsel McGahn, a total creature of the Washington Republican establishment who attached himself to Trump early in the campaign, keeping book on the President and taking notes on everything the President allegedly said -- hardly something typical of normal lawyering.
So, despite this weekend's huffing and puffing of the Democrats and the media about the Mueller Report, it is important to remember, first and foremost, that they suffered a bone-crushing defeat when Saint Robert Mueller's magical curtain was pulled back, revealing a tale, full of sound and fury, but signifying absolutely nothing. Attorney General Barr will conduct a seminar for the children in Congress when he testifies about the actual law shortly.
The real story, the one about the attempted coup and treason against this President and its perpetrators is coming, and it will come fast. A big opportunity is presenting itself to crush the British apparatus which has haunted this country since the end of World War II.
Act now, don't get confused by the heat of battle, and we can take the country back.
This kind of reporting is only possible with support from YOU. Make a donation to LaRouchePAC today so we can fully defeat this coup against the President!
Apr 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Trump Makes Post-Mueller Vow To Release "Devastating" FISA Docs
by Tyler Durden Fri, 04/26/2019 - 15:00 99 SHARES
President Trump on Thursday renewed his vow to declassify a wide swath of " devastating " documents related to the Russia probe "and much more" - adding that he's glad he waited until the Mueller investigation was complete.
In a Thursday night phone interview on Fox News, host Sean Hannity asked "will you declassify the FISA applications, gang of 8 material, those 302s - what we call on this program 'the bucket of five'?"
To which Trump replied: "Yes, everything is going to be declassified - and more, much more than what you just mentioned. It will all be declassified , and I'm glad I waited because i thought that maybe they would obstruct if I did it early - and I think I was right. So I'm glad I waited, and now the Attorney General can take a look - a very strong look at whatever it is , but it will be declassified and more than what you just mentioned."
Last September 17th, Trump vowed to release all text messages related to the Russia investigation with no redactions , as well as specific pages from the FBI's FISA surveillance warrant application on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and interviews with the DOJ's Bruce Ohr.
Four days later, however, Trump said over Twitter that the Justice Department - then headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (while the Russia investigation was headed up by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein) - told him that it might have a negative impact on the Russia probe, and that key US allies had asked him not to release the documents.
"I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents," Trump tweeted. "They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies' called to ask not to release . Therefore, the Inspector General has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis . I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me - and everyone!"
That key ally turns out to have been the UK , according to the New York Times ., which reported last September that their concern was over material which "includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier."
We now know, of course, that Steele had extensive contact with Bruce and Nellie Ohr in 2016, while Bruce was the #4 official at the Obama DOJ, and Nellie was working for Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to produce the infamous Steele Dossier.
Last August, emails turned over to Congressional investigators revealed that Steele was much closer to the Obama administration than previously disclosed , and his DOJ contact Bruce Ohr reported directly to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates - who approved at least one of the FISA warrants to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Steele and the Ohrs would have breakfast together on July 30, 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in downtown Washington D.C. , while Steele turned in installments of his infamous "dossier" on July 19 and 26. The breakfast also occurred one day before the FBI formally launched operation "Crossfire Hurricane," the agency's counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign.
Bruce Ohr was a key contact inside the Justice Department for ex-British spy Christopher Steele , who authored the anti-Trump dossier, which was commissioned by Fusion GPS and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie.
The FBI relied on much of Steele's work to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against the Trump campaign -- specifically Carter Page, redacted versions of the FISA warrants released last year revealed. - Fox News
And who could forget that much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page and Papadopoulos in London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season.
No wonder the British government has "grave concerns."
Dornier27 , 5 minutes ago linkJoe A , 1 hour ago link
How about releasing all the documents a week before coming to the UK and then use that as the basis of your speech to the UK Parliament Mr President?
It would be very funny and painfully embarrassing for the UK Establishment!Posa , 2 hours ago link
UK interference with the US elections is the real foreign interference, not the Russian one. The same goes for UK collusion. How about sanctions against the UK?frankthecrank , 2 hours ago link
"That key ally turns out to have been the UK , according to the New York Times ., which reported last September that their concern was over material which "includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier."
And there you have the REAL collusion to sway the elections and then sink a new Administration.
And destroy Brexit.
Churchill's ghost is proud.
Apr 26, 2019 | off-guardian.org
In any event, the publication of the Mueller report has cleared things up for me. I get it now. The investigation was never about Trump colluding with Russia. It was always about Trump obstructing the investigation of the collusion with Russia that the investigation was not about. Mueller was never looking for collusion. It was not his job to look for collusion.
His job was to look for obstruction of his investigation of alleged obstruction of his investigation of non-collusion, which he found, and detailed at length in his report, and which qualifies as an impeachable offense.
... ... ...
In other words, his investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation. And, on those terms, it was a huge success. The fact that it didn't prove "collusion" means nothing -- that's just a straw man argument that Trump and his Russian handlers make. The goal all along was to prove that Trump obstructed an investigation of his obstruction of that investigation, not that he was "colluding" with Putin, or any of the other paranoid nonsense that the corporate media were forced to report on, once an investigation into his obstruction of the investigation was launched.
Apr 26, 2019 | off-guardian.org
U.S. Attorney General William Barr, flanked by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, speaks at a news conference to discuss Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, in Washington, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
I owe the corporate media an apology. For the last few years, I've been writing all these essays explaining how they were perpetrating an enormous psyop on the American public a psyop designed to convince the public that Donald Trump "colluded" with Russia to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton. Up until a few days ago, I would have sworn that they had published literally thousands of articles and editorials, and broadcast countless TV segments, more or less accusing him of treason, and being a "Russian intelligence asset," and other ridiculous stuff like that. Also, and I'm still not sure how this happened, I somehow got the idea in my head that the investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was meticulously conducting had something to do with Donald Trump conspiring or "colluding" with Russia, or being some kind of "Manchurian president," or being blackmailed by Putin with a pee-tape, or something.
In any event, the publication of the Mueller report has cleared things up for me. I get it now. The investigation was never about Trump colluding with Russia. It was always about Trump obstructing the investigation of the collusion with Russia that the investigation was not about. Mueller was never looking for collusion. It was not his job to look for collusion. His job was to look for obstruction of his investigation of alleged obstruction of his investigation of non-collusion, which he found, and detailed at length in his report, and which qualifies as an impeachable offense.
Not that he proved that there was no collusion! On the contrary, as professional hermeneuticists have been repeatedly pointing out on Twitter, given that Mueller wasn't looking for collusion, and that collusion could never have been legally established, and isn't even a legal term, Mueller's failure to find any actual evidence of collusion is evidence of collusion, notwithstanding the fact that he couldn't prove it, and wasn't even looking for it, except to the extent it allowed him to establish a case for the obstruction he was actually investigating.
In other words, his investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation. And, on those terms, it was a huge success. The fact that it didn't prove "collusion" means nothing -- that's just a straw man argument that Trump and his Russian handlers make. The goal all along was to prove that Trump obstructed an investigation of his obstruction of that investigation, not that he was "colluding" with Putin, or any of the other paranoid nonsense that the corporate media were forced to report on, once an investigation into his obstruction of the investigation was launched.
See, and this is why I owe the media an apology. All those thousands of hysterical articles, editorials, and TV segments accusing Donald Trump of treason, and of literally being a Russian agent, and probably Putin's homosexual lover , were not just ridiculous propaganda. The corporate media were not engaged in a concerted campaign to convince the public that Trump conspired with a foreign adversary to brainwash millions of African Americans into refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton with some emails and a handful of Facebook posts. No, the media were simply covering the story of his obstruction of the investigation of the made-up facts the intelligence agencies got them to relentlessly disseminate to generate the appearance of a story, which, once it was out there, had to be reported on, regardless of how it came into being, or whose nefarious purposes it served.
Moreover, regardless of whether Mueller did or did not establish obstruction (or attempted obstruction, which is just as impeachable) of his non-investigation of collusion, he absolutely established that Russia attacked us by brainwashing all those African Americans who were definitely going to vote for Clinton until they saw those divisive Facebook ads and those DNC emails that Putin personally ordered Trump to order Paul Manafort to personally deliver to Julian Assange , who was hunkered down in the Ecuadorean embassy poking holes in King-size condoms, abusing his cat, and smearing invisible poo all over the walls of his kitchen.
Now, these are all indisputable facts, which Mueller establishes in his report by referencing the repeated assertions of a consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies, and the corporate media's relentless repetition of those agencies' assertions, and the feeling a lot of people have that they must be factual to some extent, given how often they have been repeated, and referenced, and authoritatively asserted, and how familiar they sound when they hear them, again. The fact that there exists no evidence whatsoever of any "Russian attack," and that all we're actually talking about is the publication of a bunch of emails that DNC members actually wrote, and some ridiculous social media posts, should not in any way detract from the fact that the Russians launched a totally devastating, virtually Pearl Harbor-scale attack on the fabric of American democracy, which Trump obstructed an investigation of, or attempted to obstruct an investigation of, or conspired to attempt to obstruct an investigation of obstruction of.
Or whatever. The point is, now they've got him! His justice obstructing days are numbered! Break out the pussyhats and vuvuzelas, because next stop is Impeachment City! So what if he's not a Russian agent and didn't conspire or collude with anyone? He got elected without permission, and insulted a lot of powerful people, and well, who cares what they impeach him for, as long as they impeach him for something!
They kind of have to do it, at this point, don't they? They just spent most of the last three years rolling out an official narrative in which the Russians are running around attacking democracy, poisoning ducks with Novichok perfume , fomenting populist uprisings in France, and just generally being the evil enemies that the Islamic terrorists used to be, before they turned into freedom fighters and helped us try to take over Syria.
If the Democrats don't impeach Donald Trump, that official narrative might fall apart. Liberals might have to face the fact that Americans elected Donald Trump president, not because they were brainwashed by Russians, or had any illusions about what a thuggish, self-aggrandizing buffoon he is, but because they were so disgusted with the neoliberal Washington establishment, and the global capitalist elites that own it, that they leapt at the chance to vote against it, and probably would have elected anyone who promised to even marginally disrupt it but there I go drifting off into my crazy conspiracist thinking again.
Anyway I'm really sorry about all that stuff I wrote about the corporate media. Rest assured, that won't happen again. Admittedly, I blew the Russiagate thing, but I promise to do better with Obstructiongate, or Tax-Returnsgate, or Whatevergate. It doesn't really matter what we call it, right? The important thing is to teach the masses what happens when they vote for unauthorized candidates. We're only halfway through that lesson. Stay tuned there's much, much more to come!
Gezzah Potts says Apr, 26, 2019CJ . So, Russiagate is finally done and dusted? Kaput? Finito? Never to be heard of again? Hurrah! I honestly didn't know how much more of the turgid, twisted, mind numbing crap I could take. Was thinking of buying a one way ticket to Easter Island! ( Do they have corporate media on Easter Island?). So now we have .. Obstructiongate. Oh Joy. Something else the ethical, unbiased, truth telling journalists at The Guardian, ABC, BBC, et al can sink their teeth into. Been as crook as a dog with rabies and bubonic plague (combined) the last week, but your words are a tonic, and your satire is bang on, Cheers.Kathy says Apr, 26, 2019Thank you for an article that exposes the fascinating Rabbit hole through rabbit hole into rabbit hole syndrome. And so concisely and wittily.A Nice business to DO people with says Apr, 26, 2019
We must all take measures to avoid contamination with this virus. It now seams to have become an unstoppable raving epidemic within the weirdly deranged, and manipulative world of the controllers and gate keepers of the official narrative.Hells teeth, we skipped from Catch 22 to Catch 53 and missed most of the numbers in between. Great work, it makes the scene in Catch 22 where Bob Newhart tells his adjutant he is out, look shabby by comparison.tutisicecream says Apr, 26, 2019
Love itI'm confused CJ, So Putin is not as omnipotent as we were led to believe by our forth estate buddies at the Graun et.al? It was obstruction of justice like the FBI not checking or investigating the DNC hard drives? Operation hard drive worked well for the Graun, you might have thought that MI5/6 would have tipped off CIA/FBI regarding Hillery's compromat rather than producing a completely fact free dossier.alsdkfj says Apr, 26, 2019
Either way it just goes to show that now in Ukraine real democracy reigns and apparently Putin doesn't like that according to the Graun either.How can anyone possibly assert that Trump is anything BUT representative of the swamp of crony capitalism and the rest. CJ, have you noticed the Austerity on steroids wrecking ball the Trump Administration is swinging around? Of course not. You are a leftist who just loves his Trump, but of course you don't nudge nudge. A truly bizarre phenomenon. Perhaps it's the nationalism you relate to, or his golf swing? Penchant for the "strong man"?Makropulos says Apr, 26, 2019
I despise Bill and Hillary, and every other corporate servicing schmuck that makes up the leadership of the Democratic Party. I especially despise Obama, Feinstein, and Pelosi for driving the getaway car for the war criminals in the Bush Administration in addition to his own Administration piling on. What I don't get are leftists that give Trump a pass on everything they rightly detest Obama, Clinton, et al for.
Trump's not authorized? Huh? The globalist capitalist being the crony capitalist swamp monster he is isn't authorized by "the powers that be"? Oh yes, yes I almost forgot. The Deep State hates him, right? I mean the way you get on the bad side of the Deep State is to shove more money to the MIC, suck up to Israel, pile on Obama's "nuclear modernization", get the prison industrial complex back in full swing, and the list goes on and on and on.
But what derision does CJ have for the fascist in the White House? Nada.
He loves his Trump.It's not a question of "loving" Trump. It's a question of realising that the whole Trump fiasco blows a hole in the phoney political spectrum i.e. that fraudulent arena which has now been revealed as – in the words of Gore Vidal – a bird with two right wings. Yes Trump is an arsehole. But I'm damned if I'm going to enter into that putrid game of denouncing him just to swing over to the "better option" of supporting the Democrats.
Apr 25, 2019 | ronpaulinstitute.orgThe Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a final report on its findings has been issued. Although the investigation had a mandate to explore all aspects of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, from the start the focus was on the possibility that some members of the Trump campaign had colluded with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election to favor the GOP candidate. Even though that could not be demonstrated, many prominent Trump critics, to include Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School, are demanding that the investigation continue until Congress has discovered "the full facts of Russia's interference [to include] the ways in which that interference is continuing in anticipation of 2020, and the full story of how the president and his team welcomed, benefited from, repaid, and obstructed lawful investigation into that interference and the president's cooperation with it."
Tribe should perhaps read the report more carefully. While it does indeed confirm some Russian meddling, it does not demonstrate that anyone in the Trump circle benefited from it or cooperated with it. The objective currently being promoted by dedicated Trump critics like Tribe is to make a case to impeach the president based on the alleged enormity of the Russian activity, which is not borne out by the facts: the Russian role was intermittent, small scale and basically ineffective.
One interesting aspect of the Mueller inquiry and the ongoing Russophobia that it has generated is the essential hypocrisy of the Washington Establishment. It is generally agreed that whatever Russia actually did, it did not affect the outcome of the election. That the Kremlin was using intelligence resources to act against Hillary Clinton should surprise no one as she described Russian President Vladimir Putin as Hitler and also made clear that she would be taking a very hard line against Moscow.
The anti-Russia frenzy in Washington generated by the vengeful Democrats and an Establishment fearful of a loss of privilege and entitlement claimed a number of victims. Among them was Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has a court date and will very likely be sentenced tomorrow .
Regarding Butina, the United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having a Russian citizen take out a life membership in the organization with the intention of corrupting it and turning it into an instrument for subverting American democracy. Maria Butina has, by the way, a long and well documented history as an advocate for gun ownership and was a co-founder in Russia of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind. It is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active membership and agenda. Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in a federal prison, having been charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She was arrested on July 15, 2018. It is decidedly unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) , but she has not been granted bail because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and return home.
FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing."
Maria eventually pleaded guilty of not registering under FARA to mitigate any punishment, hoping that she would be allowed to return to Russia after a few months in prison on top of the nine months she has already served. She has reportedly fully cooperated the US authorities, turning over documents, answering questions and undergoing hours of interrogation by federal investigators before and after her guilty plea.
Maria Butina basically did nothing that damaged US security and it is difficult to see where her behavior was even criminal, but the prosecution is asking for 18 months in prison for her in addition to the time served. She would be, in fact, one of only a handful of individuals ever to be imprisoned over FARA, and they all come from countries that Washington considers to be unfriendly, to include Cuba, Saddam's Iraq and Russia. Normally the failure to comply with FARA is handled with a fine and compulsory registration.
Butina was essentially convicted of the crime of being Russian at the wrong time and in the wrong place and she is paying for it with prison. Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned.
Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government.
Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it.
As so often is the case, inquiries that begin by looking for foreign interference in American politics start by focusing on Washington's adversaries but then comes up with Israel. Noam Chomsky described it best "First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Netanyahu goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to -- calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president? And that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence."
Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior advisor to the president in spite of the fact that he used his nepotistically obtained access to openly promote the interests of a foreign government. Mueller knows all about it but recommended nothing, as if it didn't happen. The media is silent. Congress will do nothing. As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it "We in Congress stand by Israel. In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel." Indeed.
Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .
Jeff Fisher , April 23, 2019 5:30 pm
Apr 24, 2019 | angrybearblog.com
ilsm , April 23, 2019 5:14 pm
Please explain what Trump is doing to break America.
The defense budgets are up, sequestration has been lifted so they can go up faster. US spending is at and above "Reagan build up" levels and 4 or 5 times the sum of China and Russia war budgets.
Trump is doing fractionally more than Obama (Obama was $1T over 30 years) to build up US' offensive thermonuclear capacity, he sold anti tank systems to Ukraine (maybe the new Ukraine president who was not installed by the US will not use them), he pulled out of Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987, and is placing anti ballistic missile systems in Poland and keeping the system in Rumania, etc ..
Also link how the Russians effect his tactics to break America.given the incomplete list of muscular military things Trump is doing in and around expanded NATO.
Being called soft on Russia is/was both not true, and motivated by the neoconservative members of the democratic party.
I am impressed Mueller and his spies can read Russian minds, as well as the minds of the GOP operatives spied on during the campaign, such perpetrators Mueller could not get indicted!
pgl , April 23, 2019 6:35 pm
"collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."
That is what Meuller's report says about "collusion". Basically that it isn't a thing in this context. It's too nebulous to be useful.
But nebulous terms are very useful for liars.
With regard to Russia. The Russian elite are basically fossil fuel oligarchs. The Republican party is extremely pro-fossil-fuel-oligarch. There are, as Trump is involved, surely highly shameful elaborations, but fundamentally the Republican Party and Russian Oligarchs share key interests in fossil fuel dependence, lax financial regulation, policy favorable to the ultra-wealthy, etc.
ilsm , April 23, 2019 9:15 pm
ILSM refuses to read the Mueller report:
"Please explain what Trump is doing to break America."
Lord this comment is almost as dumb as what Jared Kushner said – there were only 2 Facebook ads.
OK Jared is a traitor. So is ILSM.
all you got is ad hom.
explain what I asked.
You read Mueller, his report is affirmation for your Trump Derangement Syndrome..
Mueller's report is babbling appealing to Clinton followers ultra nationalist far right wing views disguised as a democratic.
Read the rest. Lester Holt and Clinton could be Petro Poroshenko the strong man Obama's state dept imposed on Ukraine in 2014.
The Whittington thing on Mueller no indictment report which mind reads the Russians and trump aides.
Is it liberal to complain about not being hard enough on Russia?
Interesting that Hillary Clinton said Trump was a "Russian puppet" (probably after Obama sent the FBI after the GOP campaign) and NBC's Holt (Nov 9 2016) said the US election was a Russian coup. Since when (except maybe if Joe McCarthy were a democrat).
A parallel maybe. In Ukraine since 2004 the popularly elected president was deposed twice by extreme right wing ultra nationalists. In 2014 the popular Yanukovych was deposed in the Maidan revolution with help from the US replaced with no election by Petro Poroshenko.
Sunday we hear that a comedian Zelenskiy soundly beat Poroshenko in a popular vote.
To this Poroshenko: "Poroshenko said on social media he thought Zelenskiy's win would spark celebrations in the Kremlin."
"They believe that with a new inexperienced Ukrainian president, Ukraine could be quickly returned to Russia's orbit of influence," he wrote.
Clinton and Holt could be writing for Poroshenko, a far right wing ultra nationalist!
I worry a lot about Obama's spying on the Trump campaign and the supposed liberals in this country sounding like far right, ultra nationalist, looking for a new, expensive cold war!
Apr 22, 2019 | kunstler.com
volodya April 20, 2019 at 12:11 pm #
The end of the the Mueller probe doesn't in the least mean that it's over. All over the msm you see claims that Russia hacked the election, that Putin swung the election in Trump's favor, that is was the Russians to blame for Trump's win.
Like you, I was born yesterday, and I believe that when entrenched interests tell me something, that it's the truth, as pure as the driven snow, purer even.
Besides, this story squares with logic, doesn't it? Trump's voters are uneducated, they are sub-normal intellectually, they are toothless cretins that don't want to work, that don't want to study, that can't reason, that can barely read, that chase their sisters, that fear progress, that hate those dad-gum im-grunts that steal jobs and inflict un-American ways and godless religions.
So it would be such an easy thing, with some well-placed fake-news, to put Putin's man over the top. How many hundreds of millions of American voters did Russian-sourced propaganda reach? I remember Judy Woodruff looking into my eyes, via the medium of the TV screen mind you, and saying that it could be 126 million.
One Hundred And Twenty Six Million. One-third of the US population sez NBC News. This you can take to the bank.
And so surely that proves the case, that the Russians connived and contrived to get their chosen man, that Donald J Trump is the illegitimate president, that he should not be stinking up the Oval office, that his gold-digging wife should be nowhere near the exalted title of First Lady, that his money-grubbing daughter and her shifty husband should be banished from the corridors of power, that this whole thing is at best one of those black-swan pranks that this prankish cosmos inflicts on us.
Surely Evelyn is right, that the ends justify the means, that this human dreck, this charlatan should be removed, in hand-cuffs, at bayonet point, by whatever means, because the future of the republic demands it.