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
Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump by neocons and DemoRats
(also sometimes called Purple revolution; should probably be called American Maydan: two teams of oligarchs struggle for power using
dirty methods against their opponents; one team is represented by neocons and Clinton neoliberals and it was in power since Ronald
Reagan; the composition of the other team in unclear, but it is clear that Pentagon plays important role in supporting Trump after
election in the face of neocon/neolib/intelligence agencies coup d'état )
Two third of the US population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war;
but too big money are involved to allow Trump détente with Russia
In his opening speech
against Catiline, Cicero deplores the viciousness and
corruption of his age. Cicero is frustrated that, despite all of the evidence that has been compiled against Catiline, who has
been conspiring to overthrow the Roman government and assassinate Cicero himself, and in spite of the fact that the senate has
given senatus consultum
ultimum, Catiline has not yet been executed.
Cicero goes on to describe various times throughout Roman history where
consuls have killed conspirators with even less evidence, sometimes – in the case of former consul
Lucius Opimius' slaughter of
Gaius Gracchus (one of the
Gracchi brothers) – based only on quasdam seditionum
suspiciones, "certain suspicions of insurrection" (Section 2, Line 3).
Russiagate looks a classic palace intrigue—the fracas between the White House, the two houses of Congress and a ghoulish grand
inquisitor named Mueller. But in reality this is the first color revolution that take place in the USA. I think before
Russiagate there was a tremendous gap between perception of the USA political landscape by the majority of the population
(constitutional republic, elected representatives) and the reality (empire, "one dollar one vote", "deep state" with the core of all
powerful and out of control intelligence agencies, etc). Much like in Matrix. This gap is now shrinking, at least for those who
follow this color revolution from the very beginning.
Now most people clearly realize that it was FBI (FBI
Mayberry Machiavellians) and CIA
(Brennan) ere the actual kingmakers in the
last Presidential election. They are directly responsible for the election of Trump pushing Sanders under the bus by exonerating Hillary.
And after Hillary lost to Trump they launched a color revolution against him in November 2016 to correct this blowback of their meddling in the USA election
The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is
now views as yet another corrupt oligarchic party, it was since Clinton sold it to Wall street. The Republican Party is
no better. And the neoliberal MSM has exposed itself as attack dogs of intelligence agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and cruel neoliberal system which was put in place instead of the New Deal capitalism since 1980th. The reality of the
neoliberal system now is exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens under which FBI, CIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, MSM does
not look too good, to say the least. That's probably the only good thing about it
The events after Trump elections really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup
to preserve neocon foreign policy.
Let’s remember that in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, those who voted for Trump wanted not
so much for Trump as against the neoliberal establishment. . They voted for him because they wanted a wrecking ball for this corrupt
and cruel system, a human hand grenade, a big “F*CK YOU” to the system. Maybe that’s what we got. In this sense Russiagate only
helped because the political establishment was rendered completely dysfunctional during the Russiagate.
Despite his inspiring election rhetoric's (against neoliberal globalization, foreign wars, unchecked immigration, for creation of
jobs that pay decent wages and reverse of offshoring of the US manufacturing) Trump proved to be another stage of the same process
of degradation of neoliberalism that was in full speed under Obama. With his "bait and switch" maneuver (mainly to save his own scalp, he is not
willing to die for his principles as a noble man). He was emasculated just after three months of his presidency. After May
2017 Trump became just a continuation of Obama "change we can believe in" scam. With very few exception, which
actually confirm the rule.
In all empires the real political power were eventually transferred to generals. and intelligence agencies are actually a branch
of military-industrial complex not that different from Pentagon.
In this sense the trend was visible as retired military brass is well represented in Trump administration. While it is interesting and
sometimes amusing to observe the level of animosity between Pentagon and CIA (they sometimes fight each other in Syria
via proxies), that does not change the direction in which the USA administrations evolve.
During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against
the Islamic State and reverse excesses of neoliberal globalization which destroyed parts of the USA manufacturing and impoverished
common people using Russian market as a leverage. He also objected against neoliberal globalization. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and kicking
the can down the road as for
neoliberal globalization and outsourcing of industries and jobs. The foreign policy establishment, the media, the CIA and FBI were
solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his vision of proper for the USA
policies that were elected. But that was completely unacceptable to globalist even of the level of lip service. That's why
neoliberal establishment decided to reverse the results of the elections launching a color revolution against Trump. They created
the pretext of launching counterintelligence investigation against Trump and later appointment of the special prosecutor to conduct
a witch hunt that supposedly will doom Trump (the real coup d'état which was conducted by Rosenstein and people who brought him into
Trump administration (Jeff Sessions). which means
that like is typical for any color revolution is started under the false, specifically manufactured pretext. Creating of
which was a false flag operation conducted mostly by British intelligence which resulted in creation and dissimilation of so called
In other words Russiagate is not so much about Russia as about the coming collapse of the US-led global neoliberal empire and the gradual
loss of legitimacy of the US neoliberal elite, which currently is in power. The term also serves as the name of color
revolution launched against President Trump. How quickly the US global neoliberal empire disintegrate under the blows of nationalism
and resentment for the sliding standard of living of common people is unclear. One unknown factor in the current situation is
the time when the period of "cheap oil" might end. Because the US economics experience "secular
stagnation" if the price of oil is above approximately $60 dollars per barrel, and falls into full blown recession with the
price above $100 dollars per barrel. Which might be on the horizon
If price of oil will raise to above $100 level in a decade or less as some predict, then the USA will not be able to sustain its empire beyond this point and needs
to retreat. Preferably before it's too late. Because the efforts to sustain the empire in the situation with the price of oil
over $100 per barrel might led to the collapse of the US economy as it will deprived of the necessary for sustainable development
funds. Empires tend of overextend themselves and that lead to their demise. This is essentially the situation which led to
collapse of the USSR and before that of British empire. It might take the form of yet another global financial crisis, the net result of
which would be the elimination of dollar as the primary global currency. IMHO the USA economy is unable to get out of stagnation
when the price of a barrel of oil is above $60-$70. And with prices above $100 per barrel the return to the "Great Recession" is the
most natural outcome. But it also can take the form of WWIII which might threaten the civilization of this planet.
I initially thought that Trump election was due to this efforts of a more forward looking part of the US elite and signified the start of
such a retreat. Logically the USA would be able to cut military budget to manageable 200-300 billion and redirect the rest on
rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing as well as improving life of the lower middle class, which is the backbone of the
society and standard of living of which continues to slide. I was wrong. Looks like militarism and neoliberal global expansion are
here to stay under Trump. One reason for this is that there is an influential "servants of the empire" caste of the US society,
which is materially interested in sustaining and expansion of the empire, and which is able to block any unacceptable for
Now we know that "Neoliberalism uber alles" faction of the US elite prevailed and quickly emasculated Trump by
fraudulently on trump up changes (see
Steele dossier) appointing the
The also launched unprecedented Neo-McCarthyism campaign
replacing "Soviets" with "Russians" and successfully reviving slogan "Russians under
each bed" in cyberspace. Cyberspace proved to be a perfect environment for
flag operations creating opportunity to frame chosen adversary in all mortal sins. DNC hacking charges are a prominent
example of this category (despite solid evidence that it was a leak, not a hack the USA MSM continue propaganda complain trying to
frame Russia to this day). If the calculation for the current anti-Russian hysteria is crushing Russia economically and isolating it
politically with the ultimate goal of getting Russian oil for cheap, that does not look too realistic strategy. But this
campaign does work in creating hostile attitude to Russia for majority of Americans.
In any case it is important to understand that it is the alliance of neocons and neoliberals (with the neocons and globalists in
intelligence agencies in key roles) which managed to unleash a color
revolution against Trump with the clear goal to depose him by any means as in " the end justifies the means."
Which means that retreat to "localized" version of Neoliberalism, let's call it "Neoliberalism with human face" and restoration
of some elements of the New Deal is indefinitely postponed. Trump now is emasculated. The process of erosion of the unity of the nation due to economic
difficulties, sliding standard of living, lack of good jobs as well as
job prospects for both young and older Americans, and side effects of identity politics, which is needed to keep working class in check (as well as the related process
of delegitimization of the neoliberal elite) will continue unabated.
That's crazy and tragic situation: "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” Unless something more comes of this, the
neocons, globalists and
their media cohorts will repeat Iraq WMD fiasco. As in "history repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce".
Steele dossier gambit suggests that we live in a neoliberal empire run by the intelligence services (the core of the "deep state"), not a republic.
And the democracy on federal level is severely curtained by the fact of existence of so powerful agencies. It is true that there are
some counterattacks of democratic forces under the banner of accountability, but generally the horse already left the barn. Actually,
for CIA it took less then twenty years when tail started wagging the dog, if we assume that they played the key role in JFK assassination.
And Herbert Hoover was above any serving President; none was able to get rid of him until his death.
So we have what we have:
Electorate does not matter much and is always presented with two “equally bad” choices, forcing
typical for neoliberal empires ceremonial voting
for “lesse evil”.
POTUS now became mostly a ceremonial figure which can be emasculated, impeached, or killed if the "deep state" decided that
he is not acceptable (actually Obama one time mentioned that he is not eager to repeat the destiny of JFK; so he felt the danger). It took just three months
for the deep state to emasculate Trump. The working hypothesis now is that FBI along with rogue elements in the Department of
Justice (Rosenstein, Ohr) and other intelligences
agencies (Brennan) tried to stage a soft coup against Trump after the elections along the lines:
After surprise victory of Trump in Republican primaries, they launched a color revolution against him. which included
anti-Russian hysteria in neoliberal MSM based on falsifications of
Steele dossier, spying on him to collect dirt
and find out which appointees Trump consider for key positions (On Nov 17, 2018 Trump became aware of that and decided to move
his headquarters from Trump tower to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey at least partially avoid this) . As well as
several false flag operations I view Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr. at Trump Power (organized by FBI contractor
Fusion GPS) as an early false
flag operation, see below. The FBI and CIA contractor
"analysis" of DNC "intrusion" (which was a leak, not an intrusion) also has all signs of a sophisticated false flag operation. This putsch against the will of American people was
the joint operation
of at least three intelligence agencies: FBI, CIA and MI6. Along with as rogue elements in the Department of Justice and the State
Department. See Colonel Patrick Lang discussion
The recent revelations about Steele's dossier saga implicated intelligence
agencies in a "soft coup" against the remnants of the republic and democracy. To hide this development from the public
Strzokgate revelations the deep
state required a good smoke screen to be launched. "Fire and fury" fitted the bill. Was it part of the plan, or happened accidentally
(it was actually rushed to print) does not matter. The role of the book is to distract the public from the revelations about Steele Dossier, abuse
of FISA court and intelligence agencies efforts to depose Trump. Since Jan 3, 2018 we observe efforts to replace discussion of
Steele dossier and FISA count abuses with the discussion of salacious gossip about Trump administration provided by Wolff.
Not that Trump is a saint, but he, at least, was duly elected by electorate. Even his meek and by-and-large derailed efforts
to confront the neoliberalism and unhinged neoliberal globalization were positive for the USA population developments.
It was not overly idealistic to hope that Trump would be able to
bring a world in which defense forces
(and defensive alliances like NATO) are used for the proper purpose of defense, cut crazy level of military spending at least by
half, and end expensive and destructive wars for
expanding neoliberal empire dreamed up by the US neoconservatives. That's what Trump 2016 was about and why he won.
So opposition to them and the successful attempt of the powerful alliance of neocons and neolibs to derail Trump agenda and
enforce the status quo are reactionary and bad for the country.
The release of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memo did corroborate what we already knew. Nunes did
amazing job, which for long was not done. He really served as a watch dog for FBI. Most Congress "oversight" committees are
"overlook" committees. This was an exception.
The biggest Nunes
memo revelation has little to do with its content. Essentially Nunes memo implies that FBI considered both Sanders and Trump movements
as insurgency and launched counterinsurgency operation against them. Trying to undermine them by dirty and potentially illegal
methods including new generation of dirty methods which can be called "false flag operations in cyberspace". In other words
FBI was playing the role of "kingmaker" in 2016 Presidential elections. Colliding with CIA and MI5
with the implicit goal of supporting "an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda" (read "neocon foreign policy"):
“There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in
other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy
agenda for a very long time. “
Implication is that MI5, CIA and FBI were involved in the soft coup to depose of emasculate Trump. And it works. But now
some dirty method are revealed. Which among other thing suggests that due NSA activities CIA and FBI have "implicit" dossiers
on members of Congress, Pentagon and Justice Department. Available with a few clicks of the button. This is "J.
Edgar Hoover on steroids." Dirt that allows to control members of Congress. Is not this the situation in which tail
wags the dog? In this light the fact that members of congress voted for renewal of surveillance act when details on Nunes memo
were already known is a very telling sign. And Trump against all those machinations are directed, signed it. All those people
know that are surveyed by NSA and they know that the revelation of some detailed of their activates might destroy their careers.
The second class of new dirty methods represent what can be called "false flag operations in cyberspace". We will discuss
them later. See also
Everybody understood that the system is pretty well rigged on federal level and there two levels of justice -- one for neoliberal
"masters of the universe" who are by-and-large above the law, and another for shmucks. That's not a news. The news is
the level of sophistication is escaping the changes and use of the accusation of hacking falsified via false flag operation as
a new smokescreen to pass the blame to selected scapegoat.
Here we see very successful efforts to unleash Neo-McCarthyism campaign and put all the blame for Hillary defeat on Russians,
which later was extended into the color revolution against Trump of falsified changed of Russia collision. Few people understand the
US MSM is just a propaganda department of the US intelligence agencies and do their bidding. The fact that at some point CIA
controlled major journalists was known from Church commission hearings. And there was some backlash. But now the situation reversed and due
to the regime to total surveillance their
capability to dictate the agenda far exceed the level that was in the past.
moreover, now CIA cyberwarriors can cook any accusation using their
"technical capabilities" and spread is using subservant MSM in a matter of days creating the wave of hate which far exceed
what was described in famous dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell. Refuting those "cooked" intrusions (which are a new
and very nasty form
of false flag operations) is difficult what when (and if) it is done, typically it is too late. As Hermann Goering said (Hermann
Goering War Games):
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and
it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
... ... ...
His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking American intelligence officer and psychologist
who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his
observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book
Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in
his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess.
Paradoxically while the value of cyberspace for offensive operations against adversaries is unclear, it is clear that it has
tremendous potential for conducting false flag operations serving as a pretext for real wars, or some "Show trials" of dissidents in
best Stalin traditions. and witch hunt against Trump is a just form of Show Trials in a court of public opinion.
Everything can be forged in cyberspace -- source of attack, attack methods. Fake personalities like
Guccifer 2.0 can be created to support the accusations. Sky is the
limit for false flag operations in cyberspace. Steele dossier in this sense is old school falsification. It is "DNC hack" that
is the harbinger of things to come.
Sky is the limit for false flag operations in cyberspace. Steele dossier in this sense is old school
falsification. It is "DNC hack" that is the harbinger of things to come.
We may feel uneasy by the idea that people now could be so easily manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of
the neoliberal elite, but perhaps we can be more concerned (and maybe even scared) at the thought that the capabilities to deceive
us are now greater not less that it was before. Much greater. They now really can create "artificial reality" using MSM.
In any case capabilities of intelligence agencies to hatch and then inject into MSM "DNC hack style disinformation" to blackmail
a major political figure using a "cyberspace" false flag operation are now enormous. Even POTUS can be the target of such
blackmail. In this sense the current
Russiagate hysteria makes Joseph McCartney like a pretty uninventive, even somewhat dull guy with very limited capabilities to frame his victims ;-)
Recently even Nunes was accused (with impunity) to be a Russian agent. This is "communists under each bed" type of witch
hunt on a new level.
Now we know that Russiagate was initially the criminal plot to exonerate Hillary and derail Sanders campaign hatched by
intelligence community in cooperation with connected members of Clinton campaign like John Podesta (who as a former WH chief of staff
has deep connections to "intelligence community".) Intelligence agencies and journalists connected with intelligence services
were recruited and the well planned obfuscation campaign started. which later morphed into color regulation against Trump (typical
for color revolution charges of rigged election were replaced by accusation of "collision" with foreign power.) All this
was done with full cooperation and eager participation of NYT, WaPo, CNN. MSNBC and other
neoliberal outlets. As the result in May 2016 a Special Prosecutor was appointed to take care of Trump removal.
Sanders did not have the courage to switch to alternative Open Convention to get a nomination from Democratic Party. He was so
afraid (or was threatened, the meaning of his visit with Obama is not known) that he chose to betray his voters and support Hillary. So with the help of neoliberal MSM a brazen plot to
exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law (with regard to the way she handled classified information with her
private email server; absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony) did succeed. In this sense Russiagate is in reality
It is an established fact that Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton. Following none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of
people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That was not an investigation, that was a
Potemkin village. It was a farce.
DOJ should convene grand jury to indict the major players (whose in high positions in DOJ and FBI should be fired). If like torturers
in Bush II era will not be brought to justice this is just another sign that the USA is neither a republic not a
Unfortunately Trump while a good tactician, is not strategic thinker on any level. He might have some courage which allowed him to fire Comey, and then tell that
truth to American people that this firing is about "Russiagate". But you need more that courage to take on "deep state". You need to have a plan.
You need to have a coalition.
And we do not know if Trump was threatened or not (see Chuck Schumer remark above.) He should address the nation from Oval Office and tell that FBI
story can only be believed by people with IQ below 70. And that DOJ should immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor
investigating this matter. But this will most probably just a fantasy.
Summarizing we can say that "FISA memo" is a testimony of tremendous personal courage of Nunes (note that one neoliberal MSM jerk already accused him being a
Russian spy). He did tremendous job driven by noble motives of restoring justice. And his memo undermined the Color
revolution against Trump by making Mueller position more vulnerable as he is clearly a member of the gang of FBI Mayberry
Machiavellians. It also put Rosenstein into defensive position. But this is an uphill battle and he might lose
at the end of the date. The neoliberal swamp is way too powerful and can consume even such courageous people as Nunes.
The color revolution is a subversive and covert operation of regime change which is conducted by intelligence agencies using patsy protestors,
subservant to intelligence agencies (or neoliberal ideology) part of MSM, large money infusions to fuel discontent (Steele dossier, Wolff's book, etc), as well as organized system of leaks that accuse the
current government in all possible sins (typically "corruption", but can be incompetence or other sins).
Controlled by intelligence agencies and neoliberal MSM (which are highly intersecting subsets) play the key role in brainwashing the public
that the government acts against their
interests and sustain the hysteria until the government
is deposed. they are the attack dogs of the color revolution against Trump.
Controlled by intelligence agencies and neoliberal MSM (which are highly intersecting subsets) play the key role in brainwashing the public
that the government acts against their
interests and sustain the hysteria until the government
is deposed. they are the attack dogs of the color revolution against Trump. The deploy system of well timed and carefully
coordinated with each other leaks to undermine the legitimacy of the legitimately elected government. In case of the Purple
color revolution they sustain anti-Russian hysteria which is the cornerstone of the efforts to depose Trump.
Typically large protests are organized using "professional protesters: groomed and well paid students and some parts of
"intelligencia" and professional class. In this sense the color revolution against Trump is abnormal: the only such episode happened during
The uniqueness of Purple color revolution against Trump is also that the main charge is not the falsification of the election
results, or personal corruption which is typical for color revolutions. It is the collision with a
foreign power, which is tantamount to treason. That's why instead of using "color scheme" (purple, yellow, etc) this
color revolution is most commonly called
Russiagate (which in a narrow sense is a set of fabricated allegations about foreign state "collusion" implicating the president and
family members.) As such is connected with NeoMcCartyism -- a witch hunt unleashed by neoliberal
MSM in which Communists were conveniently replaced by
"Russians". Which is a ethnic slur dangerously close to anti-Semitism. This fact escaped attention of presstitutes working
in neoliberal MSM such as NYT and WaPo, who
are proud of their "multiculturalism".
But traditionally each "color revolution" also has a "color" assigned to it. That's why we call it the "Purple
revolution" (purple was the color that Hillary and Bill wear after the defeat). This term is less common than the term
"Russiagate" but is more precise, suggesting the set of methods used to depose Trump.
Simplifying, you can understood color revolution as a soft civil war with a more powerful foreign power (and its
intelligence agencies) involved on the side of one of the parties. In Purple revolution two parties remind me
Alliance of neoliberals and neocons interesting in expanding and maintain of global neoliberal empire controlled from
Washington, DC. This coalition include most professionals (programmers, lawyers, accountants, etc), East Cost and California
elites, transnational corporations domesticated in the USA. Also include neocons (lobbyists for Military Industrial
Complex(MIC), most neoliberal MSM (the list too long, but
we can mention NYT, WaPo, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC ) and, as we now know, powerful factions of intelligence agencies including CIA
and FBI (see FBI
Mayberry Machiavellians and
A much weaker rag tag forces with high discontent toward neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization including large part of middle
class, remnants of adherents to New Deal (Sanders voters), "old-style" republicans (paleoconservatives), "tea party", libertarians,
and isolationalists (including weak anti-War movement on the left).
Includes some "traditional manufactures" and small business, which suffer from globalization. Also includes one major MSM (Fox) and some weaker outlets like Bretbart (alt-right)
In case of the USA this still looks like a soft color revolution, but instead of more powerful state involved on the side of the
plotters we supposedly have less
powerful state (but very sophisticated in such matters) -- Great Britain. Which was involved is key events of this color revolution
including creation of Steele dossier and spying on Trump in
Trump Tower, as well, most probably in the attempt to entrap Trump Jr. by organizing meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia
The key element of the color revolution (or using German term "putsch" ) that intelligence agencies organized after Trump election
the gambit to appoint the special prosecutor. Unfortunately for organizers they run into
some unexpected difficulties, when they key element of the charge of collision with Russians ("Steele
dossier") was discredited (as well as close connection of
Fusion GPS to FBI and the fact
that they financed certain journalists and media outlets became known), illegal surveillance of Trump team revealed (FICA memo
scandal) and the "collision" between certain elements of Justice Department and FBI (
Machiavellians ) became known under the name
Such attempts to depose sitting president by the "Deep State" were
not unprecedented (JFK assassination is probably one close instance, Nixon removal is another). The key role was played by close
circle of people within FBI, CIA and Justice Department. Roger Stone listed several elements of the putsch in his post (Stone Cold Truth):
Politically weaponized the federal government’s electronic intelligence capabilities to spy on a presidential candidate and his
Colluded with foreign and non-state intelligence agents to manufacture evidence used as false pretexts for securing FISA warrants(s)
that employed the national security laws of the United States to give illicit, illegal cover to this political espionage,
Used the fruits of this political espionage activity to damage or otherwise hinder this candidate once they had become president-elect
and eventually President of the United States through surreptitious releases of the criminally-procured information,
Fabricated and instigated false allegations about foreign state collusion implicating the president’s election campaign and family
Perpetuated this massive criminal fraud on the American people for nearly a full year by manipulating and abusing the investigatory
and prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.
We can see several elements of this "color revolution", the putsch of intelligence agencies against Trump that are typical for any color revolution and allow to classify this putsch as yet
another color revolutions:
Letter from a bunch of State Department diplomats -- the Department was infested with neocons since Clinton (or may be even
earlier, since Reagan) so this is far from
surprising (compare with a similar letter of Ukrainian diplomats during EuroMaydan)
Attempt to organize protests during inaugurations (which by-and-large fail). Provocations to create racial discord and hate for
Vicious and non-stop barrage of attacks on Trump administration in MSM and promotion of Steele dossier on the dominant part
of US MSM. The list includes but is not limited to:
Guardian (UK newspaper with substantial US audience),
for Russian and Putin runs so deep in Washington and major MSM that people behind the scenes are dead set on finding any way possible
to depose Trump, or at least prevent him from making friendly overtures to Russia.
Series of damaging for Trump administration and well coordinated leaks ( Steele dossier, Comey leaks,
Luke Harding rehash of Steele Dossier, Wolff book
which implicitly suggest that Trump is insane and should be remove, while lionizing Bannon (I view it mostly as "make money fast exercise"
of a gossip columnist, which only by extension became an attempt to discredit Trump), etc
"Special Prosecutor gambit" -- modeled after Clinton Starr inquiry and which used "sacrifices" of Comey to appoint the
Special Prosecutor who assembled "dream team" of very hostile to Trump prosecutors and paralyzed Trump administration for at least
Pro-Clinton elements of Democratic Party are the core of anti-Trump color revolution. They entered into alliance with neocons
to achieve their goals (in a way neocons in this story look like turncoats who betrayed their own party).
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016 election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely
homegrown affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact, they were lifetime beltway insiders
occupying the highest positions of power in the US government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama such a blight on the nation's well-being.
To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state
and practitioner of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make their living along
the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
I realize that Clinton wing of Democratic Party (soft neoliberals) and their supporters which include a part of Wall Street, large
part of Silicon valley and most MSM progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking
him down. So they joined efforts with the neoconservatives. That's why war-mongering against Russia is now OK for them and Democratic
party now is just another War Party (as was evident from Hillary campaign).
Many people who detest Trump view Russiagate as the most effective path to achieve Trump’s impeachment, so this desirable end justifies
whatever means. that makes them very similar to supported of Ukrainian Maydan, which removed Yanukovich and installed far right junta
with a lot of unsavory characters. But to me it look like Trump surrendered after just 100 of anti-Russian smear campaign launched by
neocons. So why they still want to finish him? So it must be more to it; there might be some skeletons in the closet
revealing of which previous administration and their factions in intelligence services the are afraid to death . Because their
action is as close to sedition as one can get. In other words they went va bank by unleashing on Trump Steele dossier
(va bank is a common expression among German speakers; which means to put everything at risk in order to win -- similar to "all
in" but with implicit suggestion of weak cards in hand implying the tremendous level of risk). And nowhere
it is more clear then in sordid case of Steele dossier, which looks more and more like intelligence operation of UK government, not
so much an attempt to earn quick bucks by Steele private boutique (the risk for Steele of engaging in the activity tantamount to
influencing US Presidential Elections being a foreign national was way too much)
It is sad that plans were made to remove the Pres. even before he was elected. It has been the use of a special prosecutor has
certainly been a factor in damaging the remnants of the republics and the democracy. From what we know as of January 2018 we can distinguish following partially overlapping operations
(listed not exactly in chronological order):
Attempt to instigate violate demonstrations on the capital during inauguration
Michael Flynn removal from the
Trump team (as a former head of military intelligence agency he was the most dangerous for plotters member of Trump team). Also allowed the Deep State to place one of their own as National Security Advisor.
Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambitThat includes firing of Comey, hysteria about this event and subsequent Rosenstein actions, which on surface were decided
to quell the hysteria, but in reality was just the last move of the gambit with a "check" to Trump. From this point already
weakened and partially capitulated to neocons Trump administration was paralyzed and became completely subservant to
to replace failed (and discredited) by Strzok-gate Russiagate narrative with the
Shooting for the use of 25 amendment to remove Trump.
As Peter Van Buren said "His opponents are trying to use the 25th Amendment as a backdoor to impeachment, but that’s more
Maoist than American."
Fascinating response by the Neoliberal MSM and
the establishment who have invested so much in the Trump Russia collusion narrative to so called Nunes memo: Trump was called
to testify before Mueller commission under Oath. As
Pat Buchanan noted Trump should be beware Perjury Trap as "what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests,
a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt."
"Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should definitely not be going down that
path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We
are trampling the fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start indicting
people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly unconstitutional."
IMHO the current neo-McCarthyism campaign that was deployed to solve some internal problems within the Democratic Party (rejection by
electorate and subsequent political fiasco of Hillary Clinton) is a very dangerous tool. You can't blame Trump victory on Russia.
It is a sign of systemic crisis of neoliberalism in the USA, somewhat similar to the crisis of Marxism the USSR experienced before dissolution.
Rust Belt voters rejected Hillary and that was it.
In such crisis the elite is de-legitimized and often resort to dirty tricks to regain the lost legitimacy. A war is one such
trick. Neo-McCarthyism campaign is another. Of course Russia in far from being a saint and bear responsibility for unleashing the civil
war in Donbass (and generally destabilizing Ukraine -- it is a curse to be a neighbor our of such a large and powerful country;
Canadians and Mexicans probably think the same ;-) , but what currently we see in major MSM looks to me like a classic witch hunt
with the implicit goal to whitewash humiliating for neoliberal Democrats (Clinton wing of the party) defeat and blame it on the external
force (Putin looks really like "Deus Ex Machina" for Democrats ;-)
Russiagate can be viewed on three distinct levels:
A smoke screen designed to hide Hillary Clinton political fiasco and preserve the power of Clinton wing of Democratic Party
over the party as a whole (by-and-large this plot was successful). Hillary Clinton no longer is viewed by Democratic Party as an
evil warmonger who waited chances to gain power but throwing Sanders under the bus by illegal methods. The attention is skillfully
switched to "Russian machinations" including DNS hack (which is actually a leak, not a hack ). Questionable players like Christopher
Steele and Crowdstrike were higher to advance this agenda.
Attempt of intelligence community and MIC to secure funding in view of possible cuts that can be enacted by Trump (these
worries proved to be fake; Trump dies no have any realistic plan of cutting MIC expenses or intent to rule on Pentagon extravagant
spending). But at least during election campaign Trump alarmed intelligence community including a powerful and well paid strata of
"Washington national security parasites" with the idea to reach some level of detente with Russia (at least during the election
campaign) rightly considering the level of hostility achieved under Obama dangerous and counterproductive (to the extent that Obama
might be controlled by Brennan it might be not Obama personal fault). In this sense Trump also crossed the line (with the only
difference that he did it during he election campaign) and at this point all power of neocons and neolib including their factions
in intelligence agencies was unleashed for his removal.
Attempt to poison the US public opinion to the level, which excludes any possible future attempts of detente with Russia for
at least a decade (this goal as of January 2018 was probably already achieved) . this is also important for neoliberal elite
from geostrategic point of view as explained in the following post (
Jan 7, 2018):
The USA’s nightmare is Europe (EU, or geographical Europe, incl. for ex. Norway) finally getting together its geo-proximal, cultural
ties, economic dependency / energy input, massive trade exports and imports, with Russia, and affirming, protecting these exchanges.
Previous, the existence of the USSR, the specter of ‘communism’ served to keep dominant economic players in Europe on board with
the US aggression / control.
The USA will do *xxx* to prevent any agreements between Russia and Europe, as the US would then
lose its status as decider, broker, even wielding military might and threat might be no use, doomed to failure even before implementation.
All US moves, even now in Iran, are pointed to desperately blocking new alliances, nobody can join anyone, an exercise in fragmentation,
divide-to-rule. The EU-Russ continent, heh right to China (another story..) energy-rich, powerful, peaceful, as hopefully imagined!
would send the USA into a pathetic backwater of bandits, oligarchs, urban guerrilla warfare, starving exploited children, etc.
- all of which are already visible.
From the point of view of propaganda this was a new McCarthyism campaign -- a completely manufactured hysteria which
try to turn huge disappointment of the American people with neoliberalism and neoliberal oligarchy into a convenient scapegoat -- Russia
and President Putin ("Putin did it" memo).
That's why Steele dossier was created and advertized: as part of anti-Trump coup d'état by the neocons, Clinton neoliberals and parts
of the US intelligence services. In both case the interests of the USA and national security suffers. In a way both neocons and
neoliberals are elements of foreign influence that do not care much about ordinary Americans. In any case now two third of US
population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war
First let's discuss the historical origins of the term “color revolution”. The latter is a new subversive tactics
which was successfully used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries in the course
of the last decade, especially in xUSSR space (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, etc). But the key methods of "color revolution" coup
d'état can be traced to Chilean coup d'état or even earlier.
The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists of covertly supporting as well as infiltrating protest movements
with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to
manipulate or delegitimize elections (if the winner in nor desired candidate), foment social unrest and use the protest movement to
topple an existing legitimate government. Formatting social unrest is done via media (and achieving media dominance is an important
step in unleashing a color revolution) which serve important role in any color revolution. Similar to the role of aviation in
modern wars. With the only difference that it drops propaganda bombs. The goal is always the same -- to install a compliant pro-neoliberal,
pro-US government (“puppet regime”).
The main underlying features of color revolution is that those activities are structured as intelligence operation and some
players might not even understand that they are puppet of pretty nefarious scheme and believe in noble slogans that are on the
surface of events. A lot of technologies in color revolution was taken from Trotskyite and Bolsheviks handbooks. That include
the role of students as foot soldiers of regime change, Attempt to capture media as the first step, digging dirt on key figures
of existing government (corruption is the favorite change in such revolutions). Color revolution added several new features:
massive financial infusion to keep unrest going, coordinating role of neoliberal NGO and think tanks in particular country, penetration
into and use of law enforcement for deposing the members of the current government (typically on corruption changes).
This contact bombardment of public with negative information about the current administration and "outsize" role of intelligence
agencies we can observe in the current campaign to de-legitimize and depose President Trump. Instead of corruption changes
they use the change of cooperation with country which they demonized and present as adversary -- Russia. That why
some call this color revolution Russiagate. As James Petras observed (Imperial
Power Centers, July 24, 2017) :
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid
unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime.
While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is riven by rival power centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers
are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under Presidential control: They operate in coordination
with insurgent Congressional power centers, mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business,
merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting
fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking
to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting
to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the
prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They
are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington.
Engineered protest movements are carefully planned and well financed (to the extent of create a caste of "professional protesters").
Again the key feature of all color revolutions is that they are essentially intelligence ops performed via NGO and similar organization,
with huge role of the US embassy as the coordinating center. They use non-governmental organizations and opposition media to recruit
Creation of powerful opposition media is the necessary prerequisite step in preparation of the color revolution. The protest need
to be televised in order to amplify their significance (preferably out of proportion and TV is perfectly suitable for that, using the
necessary angles to create impression of huge crowd and interviewing patsies to show deep discontent), and create a critical mass of
discontent among the population. Again, the change of corruption is the favorite delegitimization tactics in such events (and
who in modern political life is not corrupt, or do not have skeletons in the closet?).
As if it can be stopped by the "regime change" (often after color revolution corruption and looting of the country becomes much worse,
reaching like was case with Russia in 1990th and Ukraine in 1990th and after 2014 really epic scales). Often even more corrupt
oligarchs come to power as a result, only more subservant to multinational corporations. And BTW its multinationals such as GE
which control the US media too. How convenient.
Published evidence suggests that there were at least four intelligence organization involved:
CIA (Brennan probably via FBI and also via the level of control of the MSM and Obama. CIA might be the initial source of dirt
that went in Steele
dossiervia round trip to GB.
FBI via Comey,
Strzokgate and Steele dossier( Hoover was the pioneer of intelligence agencies interference and collecting dirt of politicians to survive. Then came
Allen Dulles (who might also be instrumental in FDR murder). Now it was Brennan, Comey, Clapper and probably some other highly
place officials via control of Hillary Clinton email investigation and initiating surveillance of Trump team.
MI6 (via Steele Dossier and possible help with surveillance of Trump team)
NSA -- via intercepting Trump team communications and participating in create "17 agencies memo".
Much of this like with JFK assassination is hidden and might surface in a decade or two. Currently we know very little. The
elements of this scheme about which we have some information are:
Creation of Steele dossier to prevent Trump for winning.
The use of DNC leak -- presenting it as DNC hack and implicating Russians (via Crowdstrike),
Obtaining FICA order to wiretap members of Trump team (might also be done via MI6, details are currently unclear),
Attempt to hijack election college,
Campaign of unmasking launched at the final days of Obama administrations.
Obama attempt to fuel anti-Russian campaign (expulsions of diplomats and seizure of property)
Attempt to disrupt inauguration,
Removal of Flynn from Trump team
"Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit".
Proven role of some rogue elements in FBI in exonerating Hillary in "emailgate" scandal and later in Mueller investigation
The basic chronology might be as following (partially based on Stefan Molyneux YouTube presentation):
[Mar 02, 2015]: Hillary Clinton emailgate scandal broke lose.
NYT reports that "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct
government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated
federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. Mrs.
Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.
Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time,
as required by the Federal Records Act"
[Jun 13, 2015]:CrowdStrike was financed to the tune of $100 million by Google Capital. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a
staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Oct ?? 2015]:Fusion GPS became key anti-Trump player -- the dirt digger. During the Republican
primary campaign, The
Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor
Paul Singer, hired the
American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition
research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.
Please note that Christopher Steele at this time is not yet in the picture. This will happen six months later when the
investigation became funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC.
For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became
the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.
[Mar ??, 2016]: Fusion GPS supposedly approached the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee
through the law firm Perkins Coie offering to continue their opposition research into Donald Trump in return for payment.[Wikipedia]
[Apr ??, 2016]: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee used lawyer Marc E. Elias to retain and
fund Fusion GPS. At this time Christopher Steele came into picture, may be via his ties with McCabe and FBI activities to derail
Trump. In April 2016, the investigation contract
and funding were taken over by Marc Elias, a partner in
the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and
head of its Political Law practice. Elias was the attorney of record for the
Committee (DNC) and the
Clinton presidential campaign.In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis Business
Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, and used by them to produce the dossier.Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS has stated
that Steele did not pay to any of his sources.[Wikipedia]
[Apr-Jun, 2016]: Wikileaks obtains something like 53,000 [DNC] emails and 17,000 attachments
[Jun ??, 2016]: After Wikileaks possession of leaked emails became known, a cover-up operation was started by
DNC and Clinton campaign. The decision was made to used Russia as a scapegoat for the leak accusing them in hacking. False
flag operation using Crowdstrike was staged to make this plausible. Dirty former MI6 officer Christopher Steele (who was expelled from Moscow for espionage more then 20
years ago and as such is a "person non grata" in Moscow) and his company Orbis Business Intelligence are hired
by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s possible connections to Russia. This company previously was used to Statement from Christopher Steele: “Between June
and early November 2016 Orbis was engaged by Fusion to prepare a series of confidential memoranda based on intelligence
concerning Russian efforts to influence the US Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump.”
[Jun 9, 2016]:Entrapment plot against Trump Jr. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort attended a meeting arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone
with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (the client of Fusion FPS) supposedly for opposition
research on Hillary Clinton, but Veselnitskaya instead focused on the opposition to the Magnitsky Act. President Trump's Outside
Counsel Mark Corallo later remarked “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the
president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”
Crowdstrike investigates DNC leaks and promptly attributes it to Russians. FBI is deprived of any access to factual information and uses
Crowdstrike findings. After very damaging for Hillary DNC leak (iether by Seth Rich or some other disgruntled DNC
staffer) which proved corruption of DNC and the plot to deny Sanders any changed to become Democratic Party candidate, as well as
the level of control of DNC by Clintons, the decision was made to blame Russia for the lean (using Crowdstrike which has
connections both with CIA and FBI as well as Clinton team) and use Trump connection with Russia to undermine the prospect of his
election. The CrowdStrike attribution are not independently verified as the DNC refused to turn over its equipment to the FBI. .
The connection between CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie should raise additional questions. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Jun 14, 2016]:Russiagate smear campaign against Trump was launched in by major US MSM. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole
opposition research on Trump" which reported: “DNC leaders
were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their
information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.” “That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC
lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer
crime cases, called [CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry], whom he has known for many years. "Within 24 hours, Crowdstrike had
installed software on the DNC’s computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.
" Charging good money after the horse has left the barn; it's funny that clearly political action of "attribution"
(qualified cyber adversary like CIA leaves zero traces in such cases or deliberately leaves false traces ) is hidden under tech
jargon -- my God, a "super sophisticated" system was installed that now, when intruders are long gone will truck them ;-). From
presentations available on YouTube Crowdstrike are typical security snake oil salesmen promising a lot but delivering very
little (much like ISS in the past). It is impossible fully compensate for architectural flaws of Windows without
imposing "military base" regime which is unacceptable for organizations like DNC. Moreover good adversary would use Crowdstrike
software for perpetration much like CIA used Kaspersky software in the past.
[Jun 15, 2016]: A blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0
claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from
[Jun 26, 2016] Bill Clinton has a 30 min meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch
at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. The encounter took place ahead of the public release Tuesday morning of
the House Benghazi Committee's report on the 2012 attack on a US consulate in Libya. the meeting looks like a quid pro quo
of "protect Hillary and you'll get a new great job Loretta under Hillary administration"...
[Jun 30, 2016] The new about the meeting reached MSM. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said on
The Mike Gallagher Show that the meeting was “so terrible” and “one of the big stories of this week, of this month, of this
year.” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tweeted: “Lynch & Clinton: Conflict of interest? An attorney, cannot represent two
parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict.”
LA Times. Later it became known that Loretta Lunch instructed Comey to call Hillary email scandal "a matter".
During May 2017 testimony James Comey, that it marking the moment he decided that the Department of Justice was not capable
of an independent investigation into Hillary Clinton.
The moment Comey lost faith in DOJ's Clinton probe - CNNPolitics
[Jul 02, 2016]: Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Peter Strzok, who gave her special "HQ treatment". The interview lasted approximately three and a half
hours and was not conducted under oath. No transcripts of the meeting exist. Later Hillary Clinton claimed that she gave a "voluntary interview" to the FBI today
regarding her email arrangements while she was secretary of state. James Comey admitted: Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill
Clinton was the turning point in the email investigation.
Business Insider Director Comey claimed that she did not lied to FBI during
this interview. Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton, nor did he
talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. While there was no recording or full transcript of the interview,
there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress.
[Jul 06, 2016]: Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case based on the FBI’s recommendation. Justice Department
formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges -
LA Times. Atty. Gen Loretta Lynch said she had met late Wednesday with Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted
[Jul 10, 2016]: Seth Rich was killed.
[Jul 22, 2016]: Wikipeak published leaks emails and attachments. A cache of more than 19,000 e-mails was leaked
on July 22, 2016.
[Jul 22, 2016]:Another false flag operation to implicate Russians ? Major MSM report about previous unknown hacker going by the moniker "Guccifer
2.0" who claimed on a WordPress-hosted blog to have been
acting alone in hacking the DNC. Might be a false flag operation by rogue elements of the US intelligence services, a part of effort to implicate Russians in DNC leak.
[Jul 24, 2016]: It became clear the DNC has thrown Sanders under the bus, but the role of FBI is depriving him from
being Democratic Party candidate still remains hidden.Sanders urged Wasserman
Schultz to resign following the leaks and stated that he was "disappointed" by the DNC email leaks, but said that he was "not shocked.
In reality he was robbed in daylight. But not only by Wasserman Schultz but also by the "gang of three at FBI who
essentially prevented his nomination by swiping the dirt about Hillary Clinton handing of classified emails on the private email
server under the carpet. Peter Strzok supposedly played outside role in this fateful decision. But that became known only in
[Jul 25, 2016]: Democratic Convention 2016 opens in at the
Center in PhiladelphiaHillary became
the Democratic party nominee. Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to reside due
to her role in derailing Sanders candidacy. Sanders switched camps and endorsed Hillary Clinton instead of fighting her
nomination. As Trump sarcastically commented about Sanders endorsement of Hillary: 'Bernie is now
officially part of the rigged system': Trump unloads on Sanders for 'selling out,' says it's like Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Donald Trump unloads on Bernie Sanders for 'selling out' Daily Mail Online
[Jul 25, 2016]:The
that it would investigate the DNC hack.
The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to
Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the
emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."
(Wikipedia aka Ciapedia ;-)
[Jul ??, 2016]Steele dossier reaches FBI. Steele, on his own initiative, supplied a report he had written to an FBI agent
in Rome. His
contact at the FBI was the same senior agent with whom he had worked when investigating the FIFA scandal. By
early October 2016, he had grown frustrated at the slow rate of progress by the FBI investigation, and cut off further contact
with the FBI.
At this point Steele dossier got to the desk of Peter Strzok, adamantly anti-Trump FBI
official with strong links to CIA and probably personally Brennan.
[July ??, 2016]Crowdstrike attribution is used for increasing the scope of vicious anti-Russian campaign was launched in the media with the full support and encouragement of Obama administration
to swipe the dirt about DNC pushing Sanders under the bus and Clinton emailgate scandal as well as the problem with Hillary
[Aug 25, 2016]:Brennan makes the "all in" move adopting a highly political role and endorsing
Steele dossier: according to NYT reports, CIA Director John Brennan briefed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on ,
and alleged that “unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.” (Stefan Molyneux)
[Aug ??, 2016]: Reid had
written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter
Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had
recently visited Moscow.
[Sep ??, 2016]: Steele, following instructions from Fusion GPs briefed several MSM. On Sep 23, 2016 Yahoo News published an
article about possibilities of ties between Carter Page and Kremlin.
[Sep ??, 2016]Following a report from the Daily Mail in September 2016, Weiner was investigated by the FBI for
sexting with a 15-year-old girl. His laptop was seized and emails related to the
Clinton email scandal were found on it, causing a controversy late in the presidential election. On May 19, 2017, Weiner
pled guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor. His wife,
Huma Abedin, filed for divorce prior to Weiner's
guilty plea. In September, he was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. On November 6, 2017, Weiner began his sentence.
[Sep ?? 2016]: FBI applied to FISA court to establish surveillance on unknown number of members of Trump team (at
least Carter Page) possibly using Steele dossier as a pretext.
Looks like rogue elements in FBI used "Steele Dossier" to obtain court order for wiretapping some members of
Trump team such as Carter Page (Strzokgate).
With the dirt explicitly planned to be used as "insurance" in case of Trump victory.
[Sep ??, 2016]: FISA warrant was authorized against Page, just after he left the Trump campaign (WaPo).
[Oct 7, 2016]: Damaging for Trump "17 agencies memo" surfaced. This "17 agencies memo" was
cooked by Brennan (with possible support of Clapper) by using small pre-selected team of "analysts" (in which probably Peter
Strzok played the leading role) and presented as the view of the whole US intelligence community. On October
7, 2016 . On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued
a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is
made up of 16 agencies, in
addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Yes,
17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking
The 17 agencies memo was used for amplification of the anti-Russian campaign in MSM. Neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA reached high pitch.
[Oct ??, 2016]: The FBI reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work. Looks like the agreement
never materialized as Steele was unable to provide the necessary verification for his claims.
[Oct ?? 2016]: [Wikipedia propagates questionable info about how David Corn got the
dossier, in view of role of Top FBI Lawyer Who Was
Demoted Now Linked To Leaking Bogus Trump Dossier to MSM] On instructions from Fusion PGS Steele personally compiled 33 pages and passed on what he discovered so far to the anti-Trump reporter
David Corn from Mother Jones magazine.[Wikipedia].
On Dec 22, 2017 it became known that another possible source was not Steele but FBI Lawyer James Baker who
communicated with David Corn at this time and was demoted later for the leak.
[Oct 28, 2016]: Due to the pressure from NYC FBI office who uncovered Comey announced that the investigation into Hillary "bathroom" email server is resumed based on new
emails uncovered in probe into Anthony Wiener sexing scandal (which actually were available to FBI since September, so "why now"?
). FBI reopening
investigation into Hillary private email server - Business Insider. Strzok was assigned to conduct the investigation
with predictable results. But the problem with this announcement is that it was made just a 10 days before the elections and
violates the notion of "quite period" before election where such news should not be released. Looks like Comey has second
thoughts after throwing Sanders under the bus.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former
intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and
assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”
It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his
Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to
Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based
on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was “shock and horror.” The FBI, after receiving the first
memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American
associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the
material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which
referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. “It’s quite
clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on,” he says.
“This is something of huge significance, way above party politics,” the former intelligence officer comments. “I think
[Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well.”
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, “I have
nothing to do with Russia.”
[Nov 06, 2016]:WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.
(Wikipedia), This was another deliberate attempt to influence an election as this should be a "quite" period" for such things.
Like Trump, Flynn sees a military ally in controversial Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he was seated next to at a
banquet in Moscow last year. Flynn has also appeared several times on the state-owned TV station, Russia Today, which the U.S.
State Department has accused of being a mouthpiece for Putin.
... ... ...
Flynn's convention appearance puzzled many generals he had served with, as it broke their unofficial code of not picking
sides in presidential races.
Flynn gained further notoriety when he retweeted an anti-Semitic tweet that said, "Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore." He later
apologized for the retweet, claiming it was a "mistake."
Obama administration engaged in fierce campaign of "unmasking" the result of surveillance of Trump team in which
several members of its administration participated (Susan Rice in primary role). With the goal of discrediting Trump team
and specifically removal of Flynn from the team.
However, there are 20 high-ranking officials within the U.S. government who have to power to approve requests to reveal
those identities if they deem that information is necessary to understanding the value of the intelligence. That process is
called "unmasking," and Rice had the authority to do so while serving as national security adviser.
[Nov ??, 2016]: McCain got the dossier and spread it within Washington circles.
[Dec 09, 2016]: President Obama ordered the entire
States Intelligence Community to conduct an investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. election — and
provide a report before he leaves office on January 20, 2017
[Dec 29, 2016]: Obama makes his last New Year present to Russia a fuels Russiagate hysteria. He expelled 35 Russian
diplomats and seized Russian property in the USA under the pretext of Russia influencing
the US Presidential elections.
Along with 17 agencies memo that fueled further neo-McCarthyism campaign again Russia and damaged Trump team.
Another entrapment plot -- this time against Flynn: Attempt of Flynn to limit the damage of the this move later were used for Flynn removal from the Trump team. All
his conversation were wiretapped and later leaked. In a way this was entrapment as the conversations were recorded. later
the recoding were used first to oust Flynn from Trump team and later by Mueller to
indict him on technical charge of lying to FBI to get additional dirt of Trump.
[Early January 2017]: a two-page summary of the Trump dossier was presented to President Barack Obama and
President-elect Donald Trump in meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA
Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
Christopher Steele - Wikipedia
[Jan 10, 2017]: Steele goes into hiding.
[Jan 10, 2017]: Just before inauguration, Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. Clinton claimed to be
unaware and unconnected to the event. [Wikipedia]
On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations
that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not
publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".
Following the CNN report,BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier that it said was the
basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump
that could be used to blackmail him.
NBC reported that a senior U.S. intelligence official said that Trump had not been previously briefed on the contents of the
although a CNN report said that a statement released by
James Clapper in early January confirmed that the
synopsis existed and had been compiled for Trump.
[Jan 20, 2017]: Trump inauguration was accompanied some protests like is common in color revolution scenarios, but
is atypical for the US inauguration. They did failed to achieve the necessary scale in order to serve as a "trigger for
further disturbances" nessesary to trigger further color revolution protests. There were no charges of policy brutality. Only 217 protesters were arrested.
Trump inauguration protest
damages parts of downtown Washington - CBS News
The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim
Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses,
destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles. Police used pepper spray to diffuse the situation.
[Jan 21, 2017]:Campaign for Flynn removal from Trump team started. After inauguration dirt of several member of Trump team was surfaced
and first of all on general Flynn (who was important link to intelligence agencies in Trump administration) General Flynn served
director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014. The fact the
Flynn lobbied Russians to take more consolatory stance on Israel actions and not to retaliate for expulsion of 35 diplomats will
become known much later. At this time his meetings are presented by MSM as a clear collision with the direct goal to discredit
him and remove him from the team.
[Jan 23, 2017]: Was this connected with Trump team wiretapping? Robert Hannigan, the director of GCHQ, has
resigned from his job as head of one of the three Government intelligence agencies after just two years.GCHQ would only say that Mr Hannigan had left his post for "personal reasons" and that he was not sacked or subject to
disciplinary proceedings. He had been director general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office before that. At the time
he took on the job, GCHQ had been forced onto the defensive following the leak of information about mass surveillance by Edward
Snowden, a former CIA employee.
GCHQ boss Robert
Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just two years
[Feb 13, 2017]: The first victim of Russiagate -- former general Flynn was forced to resign from Trump administration.
[Mar 22, 2017]: Politico published an article entitled "Nunes claims some Trump transition
messages were intercepted" reporting: "House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent
surveillance following November’s presidential
election." Immediately Nunes get under fire and gets investigated.
[Apr 2, 2017]: Mike Cernovich claimed that Susan Rice was identified as the person who unmasked members of Trump
[May 8, 2017]: Comey was fired by Trump. Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited
politically from that inquiry and had once praised Mr. Comey for his “guts” in his pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign
[May 9-May 17, 2017]: The "appointment of the special prosecutor" gambit was launched. After the success with the removal
of Flynn (who might still have good connections with Military intelligence as as such was especially dangerous for plotters
appointment of the special prosecutor gambit was engineered. The included usage of Comey as sacrificed pawn and was supported by
the atmosphere of NeoMcCartyism already created in the country
and rogue elements in the Department of justice.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the
day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created
documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s
contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
[May 17, 2017]: Rosenstein appoints Mueller as the Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump-Russia connections and
possible Russia influence on the elections. With the indirect goal for force Trump resignation: shortly before
Mueller was interviews by Trump for the position of the director of FBI and was rejected. Now Comey destiny as a
leaker of government information hinged on the results on Mueller investigation. And they are long time friends.
Mr. Comey revealed for the first time that he turned over memos about his conversations with Mr. Trump to the special counsel,
Robert S. Mueller III.
[May ??, 2017]: Mueller took his task to provide a pretext to depose Trump seriously and hired rabid anti-Trump prosecutors including Peter Strzok and Andrew Weissmann (whom NYT called
Mueller’s Legal Pit Bull) creating
witch-hunt that paralyzed Trump administration. As if it is difficult to find less biased competent prosecutors in
this country. In other words Mueller cards were revealed.
[Jun 8, 2017]:During his testimony Comey before before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Comey admitted to be the source of leaks to media which triggered the appointment of the Special Prosecutor by
Rosenstein, but refused to answer question about FBI role in propagating and financing Steele dossier.
Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time that the FBI. was investigating Trump team but personally Mr. Trump. .
Comey Testimony The 8 Big Questions James Comey Refused
[July ??, 2017]: Arrest of Imran Awan and possible role of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz in
organizing private spying on the members of Congress for the benefits of DNC and Democratic Party.
[July 20, 2017] FBI finally produced text messages from Strzok to Lisa Page that Horowitz office requested. Those
texts uncovered by Inspector General provided ample information about the level of his bias against Trump
[July ?? 2017]: Peter Strzok his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page
leaves Mueller team
[July 27, 2017]: Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about Peter Strzok text messages to Lisa Page
[Aug ??, 2017]: Peter Strzok was quietly removed from the Mueller investigation and demoted in FBI. Neither
Rosenstein, no Congress were informed.
[Oct 18, 2017]:Three Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth in response to subpoenas to testify before the House
"In August, Simpson, the point-man on the dossier project, met with the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours. That meeting was
held after Simpson and Fusion threatened to plead the Fifth in response to a subpoena threat from the Judiciary panel."
[Oct 21, 2017]: Fusion GPS that financed Steele dossier asks court to stop lawmakers from seeing financial records
[Oct 25, 2017]:It was revealed that Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS.
Hillary Camp Paid For Fusion GPS Steele Dossier – FBI Covered Steele’s Travel Expenses, The WaPo article claims the 2016
presidential campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS
dossier alleging Russian ties with the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and sordid phony personal smears of
Trump. The Post reported that Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $168K to
continue researching Trump after a Republican donor who originally funded the research pulled out in April 2016.The Clinton
campaign and the DNC continued to fund Steele’s research through the end of October.
The Dirty Truth About the Steele Dossier
[Nov 6, 2017]: Flynn was indicted by Mueller team along with another hapless staffer. Business Insider
The indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly
intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive.
[Dec 1, 2017]:Michael Flynn pleads guilty to
lying to FBI. He was previously entrapeed by Peter Strzok and charged with lying to FBI. This move by-and-large was viewed as
a desperate attempt of Mueller to survive under the barrage of revelations about Peter Strzok. And it suceccededed. Mueller probe
survives althouth he personally from this point was discredited as a partisan hack (which he was since 9/11).
[Dec 10, 2017]: Suspicions about the anti-trump plot within Justice Department and several intelligence agencies including
FBI were openly voiced during Congressional hearings. The "insurance policy" email suggested the existence of a
conspiracy within the FBI to rig the Presidential Election.
During the exchanges between Wray
and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say:
Here’s what I think — I think Peter Strozk (sic)… Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he’s the guy who took the
application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the
Democrats’ campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can
take it to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
[Dec 11, 2017]: During his interview Michael Morell admitted the existence of the plot to remove Trump within
intelligence agencies. Conservative
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while
secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's
defenders, it may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways
they're trying to do that.
[Dec 19, 2017]:One of the central figures in "anti-Trump putsch" within Justice Department and intelligence agencies
Andrew McCabe was grilled for seven and a half hours by House Republicans in Russia meddling probe -
“I’ll be a little bit surprised if [Mr.
McCabe‘s] still an employee of the FBI this
time next week,” Mr. Gowdy told Fox News in a separate interview.
Now it looks like there is investigation of Mueller collision with the "FBI gang of
three" along with Mueller investigation of Trump. this became rteally convoluted but the degrees of freedom for Mueller
were severy cut now.
[Dec 20, 2017]: Several other key figures connected with "insurance policy" email are expected to testify under
oath to House intelligence committee. The list include Ohr, his wide, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
[Dec 22, 2017] More than 170 House Democrats signed a
letter supporting Mueller this week, and Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, took to the
floor of the Senate on Wednesday to warn that ousting the special counsel could spark a constitutional crisis.
[Dec 23, 2017]: Andrew McCabe announced his intention to resign from FBI in 90 days (when he can get full
pension). Trump sarcastically commented on this decision in a twit.
[Dec 26, 2017]: Damage control efforts and attempt to regroup and save Mueller skin in view of Peter Strzok role in the
Hillary email server investigation and pushing Steele dossier started. NYT tried to lower the expectations about year and half "Russiagate" investigation by rabidly
anti-Trump team does not provide enough information to change President with "collision" (BTW there is no such rime in Us
criminal codex). Now NYT pleads "give me dirt, any dirt on Trump" The End of Trump and
the End of Days - The New York Times:
Fury isn’t strategy, and there’s no need to extrapolate beyond the facts already in our possession. Take the inquiries into
the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. They could screech to a halt tomorrow and we’d be left with more than enough
evidence of corrupt business dealings, conflicts of interest, shady back channels, awful judgment and outright lies among
Trump’s intimates to present voters with a powerful case against his fitness for office.
But by obsessing over clear “collusion” and insisting on visible puppet strings by which Vladimir Putin controlled
Trump, we have set the bar dangerously high. Mueller’s ultimate findings could be plenty ugly and still be deemed
The color revolution usually precede a "quite period" in which "professional protesters" are trained, indoctrinated and financed,
but no mass street protest occur:
In August 1999, the CIA set up a training program for a Serbian NGO entitled OTPOR which subsequently played a key role in the
engineered protest movement conducive to the downfall of president Slobodan Milosevic. A few years later, OTPOR established a training
and strategizing outfit entitled The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies
(CANVAS).CANVAS became a consulting outfit specializing in “Revolution” on contract to the CIA.
... ... ...
What is at stake is a “color revolution” Made in America which is marked by fundamental rivalries within the
US establishment, namely the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming
The OTPOR-CANVAS-CIA model is nonetheless relevant. Several foundations involved in funding color revolutions
internationally are involved in funding the anti-Trump campaign.
Moreover, while CANVAS’ mandate is to oversee “color revolutions” internationally, it also has links with a number of NGOs currently
involved in the anti-Trump campaign including The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWS
launched by Adbusters was funded via the Tides Foundation which in turn is funded by a number of corporate foundations and charities,
including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have historical links
to US intelligence.
It is worth noting that the raised fist logo first launched by OTPOR in 1999 as a symbol of CIA sponsored color revolutions
(including Egypt during the Arab Spring), also constitutes the symbol of several organizations involved in the anti-Trump engineered
The Inauguration Disrupt Campaign: Disruptj20
... The Disruptj20.org campaign is calling for the disruption of
the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:
#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists
and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down
the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like
housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.
The actions contemplated include “setting up blockades at checkpoints to prevent people from gaining access to the inauguration
proceedings”. A spokesperson confirmed that #DisruptJ20 campaign would be “creating a framework to support mass protests
and direct action to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump” .
This could potentially lead to violent clashes with tens of thousands of Trump supporters, which is the ultimate objective of
an engineered “Color Revolution” style protest movement supported covertly by US intelligence. It’s part of the logic of a “color
revolution” scenario (e.g. Kiev-Maidan, Cairo-Tahir Square) which is predicated on triggering confrontation and urban violence.
Is the Disrupt Campaign committed to deliberately staging violence on January 20?
“The idea is to shut down access to the parade as much as possible and slowing it down to a crawl,” said DisruptJ20 organizer
Legba Carrefour. “Then there’s the broader goal of shutting down the entire city around it and creating a sense of paralysis
that creates a headline that says, ‘Trump’s inauguration creates chaos.’” (NBC,
January 17, 2017)
The organizers of the engineered protest movement are funded by powerful corporate interests, they are supported by US intelligence.
The objective is not to undermine the racist right wing agenda of Donald Trump as conveyed in the video below. Quite the opposite.
"He is needy and amoral enough to just, you know, insult people for attention" -- Gawker
"Long a media
provocateur Wolff has optimized his barbed bitching for the Internet" -- New York Magazine
From his first book
Burn Rate Wolff emerged as a person with enormous ego, and extremely,
pathologically money hungry nut. A person with no moral code. To blackmail a person for Wolff is as simple as to drink a
glass of water, if it will bring him a couple of bucks. He represent an interesting perversion of journalism in the USA: slanderous
attack journalism without any balance or moral compass. And he has penchant of making notes of the conversation that the counterpart
consider private, or off-record. His main motivation is money and only money. While some of what he says is true, his descriptions
of people who often helped him to write his garbage is cruel and insensitive. You might be even entertained to read the clever caricatures
of everyone Wolff lied to, swindled, and stepped on in his quest for a quick buck
The book teaches us that that are much more grades of distortion of the truth them just intentional lying. It is prudent to view
this book in the context of the color regulation launched to depose Trump. In this sense it might be an opening move of the gambit "Unfit
to serve in the office". Previous gambit connected with sacrificing Comey to appoint the Special Prosecutor failed after Strzok-gate
was uncovered and Stele dossier discredited. Is Wolff another CIA produced pawn sacrificed in order to launch the next gambit
to depose Trump (as well as provide a smoke screen cover for "
Steele dossier fiasco").
The key here is to understand how promoted Wolff and secured his access to WH. His wandering inside WH was such a gross
violation of protocol that suggest that some powerful "sponsor" was involved. And the found disgruntled Bannon, used and destroyed
him in the process. The books can be viewed as a Bannon revenge ("burning the bridges") dictated to sympathetic ear. So
we can say that they succeeded in eliminating Bannon.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed the book as “tabloid gossip” that was laced with “false and fraudulent claims.”
While this is true that is not the whole truth. It was actually a pretty powerful attack designed to undermine Trump (and earn
some money in the process -- the author looks not only sleazy but greedy too) by a pretty despicable pressitute and history of
distorting fact to suit his agenda. But who stands behind this sleaze in unclear. Like is the case with Steele, while equally
greedy and unscrupulous, both are not stupid enough in order to fail to understand how foray into such things might end.
The author excels in "soap opera" style of book starting with his 1999
Burn Rate How I Survived the Gold Rush Years on the Internet. His forte is to me
Michael Wolff makes his hero to look a bumbling semi-uneducated amateur.
Either Trump put the author's wife in jail, took away his kids or killed his dog because the level of dislike he has to Trump (who allowed
him into WH, not a small fit for sleazy gossip columnist) is really something. Reading this book was like watching a one guy just keeps
hitting the other sitting tied to the chair with a boxing glove; the author kept the zingers coming from everything from domestic policy
issues to Trump children.
The key message is that trump is out-of-touch and unfit to the President of the USA. Essentially
rehashed Hillary message.
The sensationalist and outlandish tone of the book makes me wonder
how much of what is written is even remotely true. If you're looking for an analysis of Trump's policies, don't waste your dollars.
This is mostly salacious gossip. In this sense the book belong to "make money fast" category
I found Wolff writing style annoying and too gossipy... But he is a
gossip columnist and this shows. As such he really belong to Vanity Fair pages. And the book properly compressed and rewritten
with less grammar error, less repetition, as well as more solid logical structure would make a fatly decent article in Vanity
Fair. Not more then that.
There are several point that are clear the book release mass hysteria in pro-Hillary
MSM and Trump reaction:
This is definitely attempt to take down Trump. A part of color revolution
against Trump. So Michael "sleazy" Wolff probably has some powerful sponsors among Clinton stalwarts.
Trump reaction was amateurish and counterproductive. Which actually confirms
some suspicion raised in the book. His "genius" tweet was especially damaging, even if it was designed as humor mocking
Wolff. Few people get the humor, most took it at face value. The only guy who actually raised to the
moment was Stephen Miller. I like his characterization on Bannon line attack on CNN in his
interview with Jake Tapper.
Bannon was the main or only Wolff source (90% of Wolf 17 or so "excursion" in WH were for
meeting Bannon). Bannon was an idiot to trust Wolff. He also proved to be completely out of depth and iether extremely naive or
extremely disgruntled in assessing Trump Tower Meeting with Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya organized by FBI
contractor Fusion GPS as a trap for Trump Jr. (or the quote was "re-constructed" by Wolff as a payment for all the access to WH;
"nothing personal, simply business" ;-) He also have pretty unrealistic ideas about foreign policy --
too much warmongering toward China and actually also toward Russia if we take into account his assessment of Trump tower meeting
at face value and not as one of Wolff "exaggerations", designed to make a book the bestseller and earn some serious money.
Trump attorney Charles Harder
said in a statement that “legal action is imminent” for Bannon allegedly violating his non-disparagement agreement with Trump
and making “in some cases outright defamatory” statements.
Calls Ivanka "stupid" and other character assassination.
Wolf is sleazy gossip columnist who will commit any unmoral acts for money. He is now rightfully afraid of possible legal consequences.
Wolf assertion that he want to inform people about danger that Trump represents is phony.
All he wants is money and a large scandal to feed his ego. That' shy he waited for a year to launch the book at one year of Trump
presidency. There might be other motives too as the book distracted attention from Steele dossier fiasco and Strzok-gate (Ex-Bush
adviser Why was Wolff allowed in White House):
you guys , now after the fake witch hunt of Russian dossier you are cheat enough to come out with this fake book and fake author
story to malign Trump, , ..... leave us Americans alone , do not waste resources of American tax payers in satisfying your arrogance
and ego, ... instead you must call Obama/Clintons on the MSM and ask the relevant questions how much damage they done to this
... ... ...
Trump team was dysfunctional at the beginning and allow this mole to do the damage. There was not clear lines of responsibility
and with flattery you can get pretty far. Looks like Bannon is the main culprit to blame but there might be other. "That person,
by all accounts, was former White House adviser Steve Bannon. While Trump may have simply known that the biographer of his idol,
Rupert Murdoch, was on site, it was Bannon who ensured Wolff had access. "
Why Steve Bannon let Michael
Wolff in the White House - Business Insider. The AP's White
House reporter, Zeke Miller, said that every time he saw Wolff there it was with an "appointment" badge rather than a "press"
The book provide Bannon's perspective on the events, which palatably was a payback for the access Bannon provided to this sleazy
gossip columnist. Bannon proved to be a political arsonist who burn
his bridges when he left the White House. And that probably influenced the final content of the book in a negative way, making it a
political revenge type of the book.
Several themes can discerned under the pile of garbage and gossip:
Trump didn’t intend to win, nor did he live a life planning
toward the Presidency. If we assume the Trump is a narcissist this is vey shaky hypothesis. Such people organically can't
image themselves losing. The last with little planning might be more plausible.
President actions like was in case of Bush II are based on instinct,
not so much of rational calculations. Might more plausible hypothesis but looks at Trump track record in real estate.
But the fact that he managed to depose all republican contenders suggest that there is more to that.
Those closest to the President wield the most power. This
is always true in any WH administration. Like for example was the case with Carter and Brzezinski to great detriment of the USA.
So trying to exaggerate this just show the evil nature of gossip columnist, not so much the inner working of Trump WH.
The presidency is far more than one person. This is also
not a news. And the fact that left hand does not know what right is doing is also a possibility with such
amount of staff and various Departments in federal government. For example intelligence agencies are semi-autonomous entries, which
like praetorian guard can revolt against the president and FBI did this recently.
Trump’s family is not just his saving grace, they are part of
who he is and who provides him balance. This undermines the hypothesis that Trump is a narcissist. The latter are
"lone wolf" type of people, who family usually hates and fear.
He is unable to picture the real picture of Donald Trump or understand
what his election was about. and it was about the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and rejection by electorate establishment stooges
like Hillary. The victory of this neocon warmonger would be a much bigger slap in the USA face the Trump.
Before you read the book please listed to Trump old interview
Donald Trump -- Charlie Rose. IMHO he does not come out of this
interview as bumbling idiot. I strongly recommend to listen to it in full.
In two previous case of removal of president intelligence agencies played outside role. This is also true about color revolution
against Trump: it looks like the headquarters of color revolution are within the intelligence agencies and the main actors are FBI employees
and controlled by CIA press.
John F. Kennedy was entirely right about the CIA … and that was back in 1961. Imagine how much worse the global CIA-run
tyranny is in 2017, 56 years later. In addition to brutally murdering the American president, how many other heads of state
have been summarily assassinated by the Central Intelligence Agency?
Not only did the C.I.A. frame Lee Harvey Oswald because he was actually working for Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, they
also killed John F. Kennedy, Jr. to maintain the ongoing cover-up … after they killed Robert F. Kennedy
on June 5, 1968.
It’s true that JFK, Jr. was very close to outing George H.W. Bush as the CIA’s point man in Dallas on the day of President Kennedy’s
Assassination. He even named his iconic magazine — GEORGE — after the elder Bush assassin.
Now the world knows why President Kennedy was so determined to “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces” as his own son
would eventually be murdered by the same rogue elements in The Company, as would his brother be conspiratorially killed
See the real connection between the fake Steele Dossier and the Skipal hoax.
The UK MI6 is behind everything with Australia and Nato. War with Russia is coming to
avoid the Brexit. It has been planned 5 years ago. The Brexit is just a good excuse.
The continued NATO harassment, sanctions and campaigns of lies and false accusations
against Russia, including the blatant war rhetoric of the British Defence Secretary, do not
bode well for the future. For the US to tear up nuclear arms treaties and then blame Russia
is beyond shameful: it is destroying all possibility of negotiations to avert war. The Kerch
Strait incident staged by the puppet regime in Kiev, sending gunboats into the Kerch Strait
without observing the 2003 Protocol requiring them to notify in advance the Port of Kerch (a
protocol observed by the dozens of ships that go through the Strait peacefully every day) was
clearly part of a NATO plan to set up a major naval clash in the Black Sea.
That clash (followed by an attempt to recapture Crimea or at least blow up its magnificent
bridge, a reproach to a man who cannot even build a wall) may be expected in coming months,
perhaps as a distraction from Brexit or a way of derailing it. NATO, in short, is on a clear
trajectory towards war with Russia, which their deluded worldview convinces them they can
Their initial use of Russia as a scapegoat and bogeyman to unite the NATO vassals against
a common threat, keeping Europe in subjection to America, has got out of hand, and is
heading, under the impetus of hysterical rhetoric, towards actual war. Unless decent people
unite to stop this escalation then the nuclear catastrophe will occur.
Exposing the barefaced lie of the Skripal false flag attack may be a step towards averting
that global cataclysm.
They removed both Kennedy brothers. Why not to remove Trump?
"... This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago. ..."
"... I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL power. ..."
"... In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now inhabiting. ..."
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, in an
explosive interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," said that in early 2017, in the
aftermath of President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, he and other
FBI officials discussed the possibility of recruiting a cabinet secretary to help push the
president out of office by using the Constitution's 25 th Amendment
McCabe further contended that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire
when he was around Trump in order to gather evidence against him. (Rosenstein
denies the allegation.) McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time
that Trump may have obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow
under the influence of the Russian government. In the end, nothing came of the plan. Regardless
of one's feelings toward President Trump and his policies, what McCabe is describing is nothing
less than a coup attempt. It's something that happens in weak or nascent democracies, following
interference by the CIA perhaps. It should never happen here.
Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with the FBI, the CIA and other elements of
the intelligence community. Indeed, in early 2017, when news of the FISA warrants and the
private intelligence Steele dossier began to leak out, Trump began to tweet his disgust at news
of impending investigations of him, his campaign, and his business dealings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded almost immediately, saying "(The president)
is being really dumb to do this." "This" was to take on the intelligence agencies, the
so-called Deep State, in public. A few days later, Schumer went on MSNBC to sharpen his warning
to Trump, saying, "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
But Trump was right. The intelligence community -- the FBI, CIA, the NSA and other
three-letter agencies -- are too powerful, too entrenched and two well-funded. And they have
far too little oversight. They're a threat to our democracy, not the saviors of it. That is why
it pains me to see Democrats lining up behind them to attack Trump.
Presidents Come and Go
I was a member of that "Deep State" throughout my 15 years at the CIA. I can tell you from
first-hand experience that the CIA doesn't care who the president is. Neither does the FBI.
Senior CIA and FBI officers are there for decades, while presidents come and go. They know that
they can outwait any president they don't like. At the very least, at the CIA, they could made
administrative decisions that would hamstring a president: Perhaps they don't carry out that
risky operation. Maybe they don't target that well-placed source. Maybe they ignore the
president's orders knowing that in four years or eight years he or she will just go away.
McCabe's almost offhanded comments on "60 Minutes," that the FBI actively considered
deposing a sitting president should be cause for alarm. Set partisan politics aside for a
moment. We're talking about deposing a sitting president . We're talking about
wearing a wire to catch a sitting president saying something because you're angry that
he fired your boss. Even the idea of it is unprecedented in American history.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower
indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies.
He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's
Also Integrity Initiative infiltrated the Sanders campaign and boosted anti-Jill Stein
messaging. The only good thing about all this investigations nonsense is that we see how
blatantly rigged and/or manipulated US elections are by intelligence agencies on top of the
pre-manipulation by the corporate giants.
Babyl-on , February 17, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Thomas Piketty in his typically tedious economic research, has shown that there is and has
been for centuries a core block of Western capital. This core capital has not in the past 500
years ever had a year of loss, they gained in profit ALWAYS no matter the empire or democracy
war or peace – that is EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Institutions are instruments of power they are not power itself. These institutions are
given instructions by those who represent the core block of Western capital. The US
government and all its agencies serve ONLY the interests of core capital.
Today that block of core capital has grown to over 41 trillion dollars. It is the largest
block of capital anywhere in the world, it's influence is deeply saturated throughout Western
society and culture.
Peter Phillips has produced a tremendous book providing the evidence of this block of
capital and the structure which communicates its orders to the World Bank, Fed and the "deep
state" and the EU and its institutions. GIANTS: The Global Power Elite.
There are no secret societies running the world the power elites do it in plane sight. We
know their names from history and in the present. Metici, Borgas – parts of those
fortunes are in the 41 trillion. Rockefeller, Rothschild, Buffet are in the world today.
Robert Kagen and his forces which represent the 41 trillion ALWAYS get what they want and
they have for 500 years. Imagine, 500 years of taking more "profits" than any other faction
of the population. But it is not just business, there is also theft, the way England stole in
today's dollars 45 trillion dollars worth of goods from India – they simply set up a
shell game and took everything and paid nothing. This is why their fortunes grow so much
better than others – just outright theft. It is not a capitalist system, it is
This basic block of Western capital is openly pro war because within the 41 trillion are
the arms corporations which they control just as one example.
The methods of this, possibly the most enduring power unit in human history, are clear
throughout the historical record. They are ruthless, ALWAYS advancing pushing probing looking
for opportunities. They never rest or give any quarter. Governments come and go, empires come
and go but the core capital under any and all conditions profits every year.
While the phrase was first written in the years after WWII "Global full spectrum
domination." has been the marching order for this capital for centuries.
This small group of elites will settle for nothing except everything. For them there is no
morality, no good guys or bad buys, just winners and losers and they have won every battle
for power and money for 500 years, even in years where things didn't go well they still made
more that the economic growth of the economy.
It is the power of that 41 trillion which is destroying the planet and making perpetual
war for their own pleasures and profit.
Talk of impeachment of a president or "The Constitution" changing the government are
useless acts unless you can come up with a plan to take the assets of these monsters and to
distribute them appropriately so that human institutions serve people instead of slaughtering
for profit elites.
It is going to be far more difficult to deal with entrenched elites with a 500 year
success record but until its power is finally dissipated.
Idimalink , February 17, 2019 at 12:08 pm
The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes.
errorum propagationi , February 17, 2019 at 2:55 pm
"The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes."
And yet despite the tough-talking, empty-rhetoric, Trump continues to bow to the same.
Their crimes continue. The NSA is STILL collecting all data from EVERY citizen of the U.S., yet Trump has ensured
even-greater secrecy of those actions by that agency. The CIA is STILL interfering in the politics of other countries, and STILL running
The FBI continues to ignore crimes by the .001 percent (incluing pedophilia, child
trafficking, financial crimes, white collar crimes, etc.).
Trump continues to call for the draconian prosecution of those whom sought to expose the
actions of these agencies.
Propaganda only works when it isn't recognized as such.
Trump's actions are called the propaganda of diversion & distraction.
Both Trump and Hillary were HIGHLY unpopular, yet the mindless masses are forced into not
only accepting either, but ultimately defending the instilled "leader".
You are proof of the effectivness of that propaganda.
Trump is an Entertainer, first and foremost.
His job is to lead mere followers like you to believing the roles he plays, into accepting
the same wholly corrupted system. "Partisan" politics is increasingly being scripted like episodes of entertainment, like
the Jerry Springer show.
Have you ever bothered to consider that the largest "news" media are similarly owned by
the same corporations that own the largest entertainement media?
I used to work for a image & footage library ..the firms are using stock images, video
& sound for both their entertainment & "news". Have you ever bothered to examine the true underlying ownership of the highly consolidated
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc are all largely owned by the same firms, via large stock
Trump is an Entertainer serving each of these subsidiaries.
The viewership/ratings of each has climbed.
The more "contention" (mere diversion & distraction) Trump creates, the more the loyal
viewers of these media continue to indulge in the nonsense.
"Partisan" followers, the sheep, are doing the same of their respective parties, each of
which are controlled by the same elite.
Don't believe it, take a look at the campaign finance & investment portfolios of the
largest candidates of each party (including the "Dems", "GOP", "Progs" and
The true "Deep State" is much larger than Trump.
Those few Agents he has called-out & sought to damage, are just small cogs in the much
Absolutely nothing has changed. The mindless masses are so easily herded. Instincts of the Herd in Peace & War – Wilfred Trotter
Propaganda – Edward Bernays
The deep state kills presidents. It why Trump has his own security ..smart move. Trump tried to take them on and was called a TRAITOR ..and criminals like Brenner and
clapper and Haden work for MSNBC and CNN now? The USSR wasnt so blatant .
Spot on. Trump is PT Barnum, not Martin Luther King. He's not fighting to "save America
from the Deep State." Trump's a clown riding a unicycle juggling chainsaws. He's a circus
charlatan, not some hero demolishing the FBI to save John Q Public from the spooks. Sheep
Scott Hunter , February 17, 2019 at 11:49 am
Spot on!!! Accountability is the next step Integrity is the key and has always been the
key to walking a path that brings contentment.
Thank you for your service John Kiriakou!!!
Billy , February 17, 2019 at 11:47 am
The Emsils reveal Hillary cheated Bernie. She needed to distract. Brennan, Clapper and the
FBI assisted her. When she lost they switched over from distract to removal mode. The entire
MSM is also complicate in this illegal coup. They're not fake news they're propagandist.
MSM fired Ed Shultz for wanting to cover Sanders . MSM fired Jesse Ventura for being anti war . MSM fiired Phil Donahue for being against the Iraq wars .. Brennan and Clapper and Haden are proved Bush criminals who now work for the MSM and CNN
liars ,war mongers and torture enthusiasts .
I like John and the information he puts out for us. But I just don't buy this. I see this
just as I did the 2016 election cycle for the republican party. A circus of over 21
candidates and everyone and the media all against Trump. But who got all the free time in the
media and ended up being the president? I didn't buy the fake disdain from the republicans
towards Trump because I knew they were licking their chops wanting him in their. With Trump
they could take the country to the right as far as they wanted. And here we are looking at a
fascist state now. The US has leaped right into the fire of the fourth reich. All that in
2016 was us being duped into a false illusion of Trump can't possibly win while the plan was
make him win. I honestly believe the whole 2016 election cycle was one big illusion to take
over the country. A coup over the population.
Trump and these intelligence agencies are working just fine together. This is all just
another illusion as the country continues to move towards fascism with the rest of the world.
Still working together in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Africa and a list of other countries, along
with right here among us is the FBI. After all, right there in the article it states as much.
These entities and Trump essentially have the same agenda. And what we;re getting is a dose
of perception management to duped us from the reality of it being the reality. And just like
the founder of this news site has taught us, the media is the tool to make it work for
Anne Jaclard , February 17, 2019 at 9:19 pm
Agree that Trump is a corporate military-intelligence flunky like his predecessors but
that doesn't justify the FBI/CIA manipulation, as it was based merely on dovish (but ignored
in office, of course) campaign rhetoric. What if Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, or somebody
better than either of them (neither are super great) get spied upon or ousted by a militarist
cabal for the same reasons?
Jeff Harrison , February 17, 2019 at 10:40 am
It can't happen here . I'm telling you my dear, it can't happen here. – Frank Zappa
in a tune of the same name.
But, John, it already has. Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat, pissed off that he wasn't made FBI
director at Hoover's death, brought down a President, Nixon, out of personal pique. He
revealed secrets that never should have been secrets to Woodward & Bernstein and brought
Nixon down. Our evil ways in the rest of the world have come home to roost. You spoke of the
Church committee's reforms. I doubt there's much left of Frank Church's reforms. The three
letter surveillance state is the new Praetorian Guard. There is naught to be done but disband
the whole lot of 'em if we want our democracy back. I know everybody will be screaming that
Oh NO! We can't do that! But, ah, yes we can (to steal someone else's bullshit line).
The Ticoes of Costa Rica, after they got their government back from the military after a 1948
coup simply disbanded the military. No more military to junta. Haven't had a coup since.
There's two trite but very true lines:
Bullshit walks and money talks,
What goes around comes around. (and it's starting to come around. We'd better do something
about it or we will regret it. But that would mean we'd have to give up our imperial
pretensions and we all know that's not going to happen.)
anon4d2 , February 17, 2019 at 9:43 pm
We could certainly re-purpose 80% of our military to building infrastructure in developing
nations, without any opposition from them or additional expense, and improve our security and
international standing. We could completely eliminate the unconstitutional spying upon
citizens without any opposition, and use the same employees for humanitarian purposes.
But of course oligarchy must first be deposed, which historically has required invasion or
revolution. Where oligarchy controls mass media and elections, education and activism won't
get us there. Invasion is no longer a likely path. So the revolution will be the bloodiest in
history, likely after the mass media are discredited, the economy ruined by foreign embargo,
and oligarchy no longer able to provide the bread and circus needed to quell the
If that string of disasters does not happen, we may have a permanent tyranny, a society
that explicitly accepts and honors tyranny, a curse upon humanity until its destruction.
JOHN WHITE , February 17, 2019 at 10:29 am
THEY DID NOT COME CLOSE TO A COUP..
THE COUP IS STILL GOING ON ..
So now I know what the 25th amendment to the Constitution is about. Impeachment would be
messy incapacitation would be quick and half the public, feeling helpless, would soon
Discussion of this reminds me of the things we accused the Stalin regime of doing, which
they well may have. Here today, gone tomorrow.
We cannot be sure this is all true, but the mere fact that it is floating around is
chilling. Impeachment with its uncertain outcome would be messy, using the 25th amendment
would be relatively quick if all your ducks were lined up.
Can we describe the Trump syndrome as anything else than mass hysteria. It has gotten so
bad that no matter what Trump proposes, forces go to work to prevent it from happening lest
he get credit for it. The merit of what he proposes, be damned, it's his idea and we are not
going to let it happen.
Who and what is at risk. A besieged President, anxious to survive, can do crazy things
which his crazy enemies happen to believe are good ideas. Things like detente with Russia are
set aside as is an effort to achieve normal relations with North Korea. Things like creating
a crisis with Iran or pulling out of a nuclear treaty are either praised or accepted. It all started minus day one of this guys presidency and it just won't stop. Hard to say
how it could end, but the options are pretty
The authors point is that we have elections to decide who shall be president and the
intoxicated crew in Washington, New York and Hollywood need to accept that.
Eric32 , February 17, 2019 at 9:06 am
This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected
President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago.
Nothing real will be done, and the disease will just get deeper and more widespread.
MBeaver , February 17, 2019 at 9:51 pm
I often look at politics like I look at software.
If you have bugs, you fix them quickly before they can hurt your customers too much and they
decide to ditch your software or look for an alternative somewhere else.
Here they are being ignored for decades and decades and many people exploit them, because
they can flourish on them, like a criminal uses bugs in software to circumvent security. Like
parasites. But the vast majority and the system itself is getting damaged by them. People
adapt to them, and become as dishonest as the minority. It gets worse and worse until there
is no way back and ends in a disaster.
Dave , February 17, 2019 at 8:18 am
Are McCabe and others going to face any consequences for their actions? I have some
Skip Scott , February 17, 2019 at 7:35 am
"McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time that Trump may have
obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow under the
influence of the Russian government."
I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement
"wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not
influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk
trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction
treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama
attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and
Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel
agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL
("Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd"
continues to ensure that Trump toes the line.")
I quite agree, and with your comment in mind I'd say that one could quite rationally argue
that in fact a deep state coup "has actually taken place" and was in fact quite successful.
Trump will most certainly "not" be normalizing relations with Russia if he wants to remain
president. This is the power of the deep state carried out through relentless MSM propaganda,
evidence and "reality" be damned.
In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to
help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow
Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way
impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now
"The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the
REAL power." – spot on!
jadez , February 17, 2019 at 6:46 am
MAYBE MR John Kiriakou should familiarize himself with the Constitution..and the 25th
amendment which he acknowledges was to be used to "oust"..a sitting president.
i do not disagree or challenge his integrity regarding the actions of the agencies he
writes about yet at the same time to dismiss out of hand a constitutional avenue of removing
a president for say BEING an actual agent of a foreign government can not be dismissed based
strictly on the idea that presidents "come and go"!
Abby , February 18, 2019 at 12:29 am
I'm pretty sure that Kiriakou knows all about the constitution and the 25th amendment. The
problem that he's discussing here is that if a president is unfit to continue his presidency
then it's up to his cabinet and congress to remove him, not the intelligence agency's
Where was the proof that Trump was being an actual agent of a foreign government? There
was none at the time of this attempted coup and so far Mueller hasn't shown any. Manafort is
guilty of breaking tax laws, not anything to do with collusion with people in Russia. Nor has
he shown that anyone else was or is either. And do you honestly think that if a president was
working with a foreign government that congress would just sit patiently by as Mueller
dragged his feet for two years looking into that? I think not.
Seby , February 17, 2019 at 5:02 am
Excellent in more detailed analysis of this power struggle in the US plutocracy at NEO
3 Major Divisions in the American Ruling Class by Caleb Maupin.
Division #1: Saudi Wahabbis vs. The Muslim Brotherhood
Division #2: The Pentagon vs. Intel Agencies
Division #3: The Rich vs. The Ultra-Rich
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
"... Baker said McCabe was cool, calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time." ..."
"... According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." ..."
Two Trump Cabinet officials were "ready to support" a DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump , according
Fox News , citing closed-door testimony from the FBI's former top lawyer, James Baker - who said that the claim came from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the
transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book. -
While Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials, he says that McCabe and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page approached him to
relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including their discussions of the 25th Amendment scheme. "I was being told by some combination
of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was
related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president's Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it,
an action under the 25th Amendment," Baker told the Congressional committees.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a sitting president from office through various mechanisms - including the majority
of a president's Cabinet agreeing that the commander-in-chief is incapable of performing his duties.
Rosenstein - who is slated to leave the Justice Department in the near future, has denied the claims. Baker said McCabe was cool,
calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably
confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time
because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So
I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time."
told "60 Minutes" in an interview set to air Sunday night that Rosenstein was concerned about Trump's "capacity."
According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity
and about his intent at that point in time."
"Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president?"
asks CBS News anchor Scott Pelly, to which McCabe replied: " That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes. "
The New York Times
last year that McCabe alleged in memos that Rosenstein had talked about using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump -- or wearing a
wire to surreptitiously monitor the president -- in the hectic days in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
At the time, Rosenstein disputed the reporting. -
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the 25th Amendment scheme a "
bureaucratic coup " led by enemies of President Trump. On Sunday morning, Graham said he would subpoena McCabe and Rosenstein
"if that's what it takes" to get to the bottom of the 25th Amendment claim.
On Thursday, the DOJ issued a statement claiming that Rosenstein rejects McCabe's version of events "as inaccurate and factually
incorrect," and also denied that Rosenstein ever approved wearing a "wire" to record Trump.
"The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," reads the DOJ statement. "As the deputy
attorney general previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment,
nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
McCabe, meanwhile, walked back some of his "60 Minutes" statements . On Friday a spokeswoman for the former Deputy Director said:
"Certain statements made by Mr. McCabe, in interviews associated with the release of his book, have been taken out of context and
misrepresented," adding "To clarify, at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th
Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."
Baker acknowledged during his testimony that he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions, rather, McCabe and Page
approached him contemporaneously following a meeting with Rosenstein in the days following former FBI Director James Comey's firing.
"I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president's Cabinet
and that they were onboard with this concept already," said Baker.
Question: "Do you know what direction that went? Was it Mr. Rosenstein seeking out members of the Cabinet looking to pursue
this 25th Amendment approach or was it the other way around?"
Baker: "What I recall being said was that the Deputy Attorney General had two members of the Cabinet. So he – how they came
to be had, I don't know, but "
Question: "So he had two members, almost like he was taking the initiative and getting the members?"
"Our choice now seems to be between a "new war" and a new world. As always, the forces of reaction and wealth are telling us
we have no choice but war, and no right or power to decide. They are calling for a secret investigation, a secret conviction,
a secret method of execution, and a totally secret war abroad.
"The American people as a whole are the only ones in the world who have the right to decide on a national response to this
tragedy, and it must be one that takes into account the rights of all the other peoples and nations of the world."
The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
In neoliberal MSM there is positive feedback loop for "Trump is a Russian agent" stories. So the meme feeds on itself.
"... And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
"... the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience. ..."
"... Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's not that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years ..."
"... Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water ..."
"... Now they're skipping the middle man and killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their health, all to ensure that Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community . ..."
"... The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government institutions. ..."
"... The ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an inverted totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common man. ..."
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this administration has made against the
interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning
Russian oligarchs to dangerous military posturing.
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working
to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand
for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less "Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey,
maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't,
because the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives
are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors,
and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's
not that much different
from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried about this administration than they
were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of
the establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating
government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't
even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water.
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French citizens losing trust in their institutions
and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France
closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting
U.S. government institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats cheering on the U.S.
intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that
Americans think about their rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt institutions and
rising like lions against them. That gets increasingly likely as those
institutions lose control of the narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring power
to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
"... In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well. ..."
In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI
Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing
President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the
President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy
director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to
accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure
that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well.
Now, after its own two years of investigation and 200 interviews, Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) has said, "There is no factual evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia." Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) said he disagrees
with the way Burr characterized the evidence, but declined to give his own assessment.
Veteran criminal attorney John Dowd, a member of Trump's legal team from June 2017 to March
"I know exactly what he [Mueller] has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every
document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result
What will be the result of the probe?
"It's been a terrible waste of time.... This is one of the greatest frauds the country has
ever seen. I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, 'I'm being
used.' I would've done that.
"I'd have gone to [then Attorney General] Sessions and Rosenstein and said, 'Look. This is
nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.' "
Asked about Mueller's final report, he responded, "I will be shocked if anything regarding
the President is made public, other than, 'We're done.' "
At the same time, former NSA Technical Director William Binney has published new evidence
which shows that the DNC documents posted by WikiLeaks in July 2016, were probably not hacked
over the internet, by Russians or anyone else -- rather, the only available forensic evidence
indicates that they were downloaded from within the DNC's network. His evidence is summarized
in an article he co-authored with former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Col. Pat Lang's "Sic
Semper Tyrannis" blog yesterday.
"... This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must continue to trust them. ..."
"... More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass media. ..."
"... CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016 publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by multiple people ..."
"... The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage. ..."
"... The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless cultural engineering project . ..."
"... They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better. ..."
Following what the Washington Post
has described as "the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during a period
of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press," mass media representatives are now flailing
desperately for an argument as to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream
On Thursday Buzzfeed News delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russiagate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a
pattern that is now so consistent that I've personally made a practice of declining to comment
on such stories until a day or two after their release. "BOOM!" tweets were issued by
#Resistance pundits on Twitter, "If true this means X, Y and Z" bloviations were made on mass
media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of
their lives, giddy with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable felony by
ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed Trump office tower in Moscow, a
proposal which died within weeks
and the Kremlin never touched .
There was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from frenzied
celebration, including the fact that the story's two authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony
Cormier, were giving the press two very different accounts of
the information they'd based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he had not personally seen
the evidence underlying his report and Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and
Cormier, for the record, have already previously suffered a
Russiagate faceplant with the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016
election, burying the fact that it was a Russian election .
Then the entire story came crashing down when Mueller's office took the extremely rare step
of issuing an
unequivocal statement that the Buzzfeed story was wrong , writing simply, "BuzzFeed's
description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of
documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional
testimony are not accurate."
According to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New York Times covered
the Buzzfeed report on its front page when the story broke, but the report on Mueller's
correction the next day was shoved back to page 11 .
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that NYT's Wajahat Ali had the gall
to tweet , "Unlike the Trump
administration, journalists are fact checking and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed
story is found inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the people,
This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not
reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must
continue to trust them.
"Those trying to tar all media today aren't interested in improving journalism but
protecting themselves," tweeted NBC's Chuck Todd.
"There's a lot more accountability in media these days than in our politics. We know we
live in a glass house, we hope the folks we cover are as self aware."
More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid
exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass
"Mueller didn't do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president one,"
the odious Chris Cuomo on CNN. "Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I'm sure
you'll see with the president himself, this allows them to say 'You can't believe it! You can't
believe what you read, you can't believe what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the
Special Counsel says that the media doesn't get it right.'"
"The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the
news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're
willing to lie to do it, and I don't think that's true" said Jeffrey Toobin on a CNN panel , adding "I
just think this is a bad day for us."
"It does reinforce bad stereotypes about the news media," said Brian Stelter on the same CNN
"I am desperate as a media reporter to always say to the audience, judge folks
individually and judge brands individually. Don't fall for what these politicians out there
want you to do. They want you to think we're all crooked. We're not. But Buzzfeed now, now
the onus is on Buzzfeed. "
CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably
even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that
Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016
publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by
The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be
distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant
promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even
more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a
preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it
doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their
numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are
being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless
cultural engineering project .
They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties
never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the
wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse
narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better.
"George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took
interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late
April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted].
Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive
covert campaign to influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring.
We would later learn in Papadopoulos's plea that the information the Russians could assist
by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton emails."
my problem with this is wikileaks released the e mails via a search-able archive on march
and from the nyt article "Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about
his conversations with the "professor." Mr. Mifsud is referred to in the papers only as "the
professor," based in London, but a Senate aide familiar with emails involving Mr. Mifsud --
lawmakers in both the Senate and the House are investigating Russia's role in the election --
confirmed that he was the person cited."
the whole thing of russia influencing the usa election seems built on via a number of
sketchy characters at best..
at any rate - this is what emptywheel thinks is relevant in an otherwise irrelevant memo
from schiff... i don't get how it is!
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud. April
26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of
e-mails". May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary. May 10th. Popadopoulos gets
drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails. June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not
specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid"
to journalists (but not presumably Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump, but
this was not announced to the (presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put
Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to
the State Department as opposed to his domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western
asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up
the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state
operation to dirty Trump in the unlikely event that he went on to win.
"... In 1940, as war raged in Europe, British intel officers in New York and Washington worked to elect candidates who favored U.S. intervention, defeat those who advocated neutrality, and silence or destroy the reputations of American isolationists they deemed a menace to British security. Scores -- perhaps hundreds -- of Americans who believed that fighting fascism justified unethical and, at times, illegal behavior, worked for British intelligence or cooperated with London's efforts. ..."
"... Churchill, the U.K.'s savvy wartime prime minister, knew that Britain could survive and repel an anticipated German invasion only if it received massive amounts of aid from the U.S., and that ultimate victory over the Nazis would require American military involvement. ..."
"... To pull the U.S. into Britain's efforts would require first winning public opinion -- making newspapers and radio programs the front lines in the battle to persuade Americans to elect politicians willing to back Britain over those who promoted an "America First" agenda. SIS, the British intelligence agency, flooded American newspapers with fake stories, leaked the results of illegal electronic surveillance and deployed October surprises against political candidates. ..."
"... Over the 18 months between Britain's humiliation at Dunkirk and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the scale and intensity of the SIS's efforts in the United States were without parallel in the history of relations between allied democracies. ..."
Overt intelligence operations, propaganda, fake news stories, dirty tricks -- all were used
in a foreign government's audacious attempt to influence U.S. elections. It wasn't 2016; it was
1940, and the operations were employed not by a hostile adversary, but by America's closest
ally, the United Kingdom.
Though technology has advanced, and the two nations' motives could not have been more
different, critical aspects of Russia's alleged covert efforts to bolster the campaign of
Donald Trump echo the tactics that Britain's Secret Intelligence Service pioneered seven
decades ago. In 1940, as war raged in Europe, British intel officers in New York and Washington
worked to elect candidates who favored U.S. intervention, defeat those who advocated
neutrality, and silence or destroy the reputations of American isolationists they deemed a
menace to British security. Scores -- perhaps hundreds -- of Americans who believed that
fighting fascism justified unethical and, at times, illegal behavior, worked for British
intelligence or cooperated with London's efforts.
Winston Churchill's goals were as clear Vladimir Putin's motives are murky. Churchill, the
U.K.'s savvy wartime prime minister, knew that Britain could survive and repel an anticipated
German invasion only if it received massive amounts of aid from the U.S., and that ultimate
victory over the Nazis would require American military involvement. He also knew that decisions
to send food, fuel and weapons across the Atlantic, and to dispatch troop ships to follow in
their wake, lay in the hands of the president and a hostile Congress. To pull the U.S. into
Britain's efforts would require first winning public opinion -- making newspapers and radio
programs the front lines in the battle to persuade Americans to elect politicians willing to
back Britain over those who promoted an "America First" agenda. SIS, the British intelligence
agency, flooded American newspapers with fake stories, leaked the results of illegal electronic
surveillance and deployed October surprises against political candidates.
Over the 18 months between Britain's humiliation at Dunkirk and the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, the scale and intensity of the SIS's efforts in the United States were without parallel
in the history of relations between allied democracies.
The SIS and its American collaborators went to great lengths to obscure the ties between
their activities and the British government. These links have since come to light largely
because William Stephenson, the Canadian businessman who headed British Security Coordination
(BSC), the official front for SIS operations in North and South America from 1941–1945,
commissioned a history of the organization's operation. Declassified in 1999,
that history provides a remarkably candid picture of London's espionage and propaganda
activities. Alongside other documents available in the U.K. National Archives, this history
shows that, as it sought to shift America out of neutrality, British intelligence was
restrained only by the certainty that the blowback from public exposure would have been
The story of British government efforts to influence American elections and public opinion
is a cautionary tale, providing a lesson that is all too relevant today about the power of
propaganda and covert operations to alter history. It also demonstrates how difficult it can be
to differentiate in real time between legitimate concerns and imaginary conspiracy theories --
and, perhaps, provides a glimmer of hope about the resilience of American democracy.
American communists, fascists and isolationists complained bitterly and loudly in
1940 and 1941 that Britain was secretly manipulating the U.S. media as part of a campaign to
pull America into the war. These accusations, confidently dismissed by liberal politicians and
newspapers as paranoid ravings, were inaccurate only in that they were understated. Even the
most alarmist commentators and conspiracy-mongers underestimated the depth and effectiveness of
British covert activity.
British intelligence employed the full range of cloak-and-dagger techniques in America in
1940 and 1941: forgeries, seductions, burglaries, electoral dirty tricks, physical
surveillance, intercepting and reading letters sent under diplomatic seal, illegally bugging
offices and tapping phones. British intelligence even listened in on a telephone call in June
1940 between President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House and his ambassador to Britain,
Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. A report on the call was quickly relayed to Churchill, alerting him that
the U.S. was making contingency plans in case the U.K. fell to the Nazis.
While the British government strongly backed Roosevelt, it hedged its bets by working behind
the scenes to increase the chances that Republicans would pick a presidential candidate in 1940
who would join the fight against fascism.
The Republican Party, lacking a consensus about a standard-bearer or platform, was in
disarray in June 1940 as its national convention approached. BSC worked behind the scenes to
smooth the path for a nominee who favored intervention. One element of the BSC's operations
surfaced on June 25, when the New York Herald reported on a poll of convention
delegates. Surprisingly, given the isolationist positions espoused by GOP stalwarts like Thomas
Dewey, Robert Taft and Herbert Hoover, the poll -- which the Herald wrote was "conducted
by Market Analysts, Inc., an independent research organization" -- found that three-fifths of
GOP delegates supported helping the allies "with everything short of war." In fact, Market
Analysts, Inc., was anything but independent. Its head, Sanford Griffith, was an American who
had secretly been working for British intelligence since the 1930s, and regardless of the
population surveyed, its polls consistently advocated U.S. interventionism in Europe.
Among Market Analysts' clients was the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, a
group led by William Allen White, a nationally syndicated columnist influential among liberal
Republicans. In his column, White wrote that the GOP delegate poll demonstrated that leading
Republican isolationists were out of touch with the party's members, and that Wendell Willkie
-- who had not run in the presidential primaries and had switched his party affiliation from
Democratic to Republican only a few months ahead of the national convention -- best represented
Republicans' views. While all of the other Republican contenders advocated steering clear of
the war in Europe, Willkie argued that "America's first line of defense is Great Britain." It
is impossible to determine exactly how influential BSC's assistance was, but Willkie went into
the convention an underdog and -- to London's delight, and the astonishment of the Republican
establishment -- emerged as the GOP candidate.
In addition to Griffith's operation, BSC funded and coordinated the activities and messaging
of a number of American anti-fascist organizations. One of these, an informal group of wealthy
businessmen and journalists called the Century Group, operated during the campaign as a liaison
between the British government, the White House and the Willkie campaign. It brokered an
agreement from Willkie to refrain from criticizing a proposal that allowed Roosevelt to
unilaterally authorize the transfer of scores of mothballed destroyers to Britain. As the first
president to snub George Washington's precedent of voluntarily stepping down after two terms,
FDR was acutely aware of the threat posed by accusations that he was behaving like a dictator,
so even the hint of such an accusation from the Republican candidate may have scuttled the
deal. On August 30, 1940, BSC's agents secured Willkie's commitment to acquiesce to the
transfer. Assured that he wouldn't pay a devastating political price, Roosevelt announced the
deal at a press conference four days later.
The BSC's work on Willkie's behalf was an exception. For the most part, it focused not on
promoting candidates, but rather on defeating elected officials who opposed American
intervention in the war.
Among those opponents was Rep. Hamilton Stuyvesant Fish III, a Republican and leading
isolationist who had represented New York's Hudson Valley in Congress since 1920. By picking a
high-profile target, the campaign against Fish was intended to "put the fear of God into every
isolationist senator and congressman in the country," according to a letter a BSC agent sent in
To do this, the BSC created, funded and operated the Non-Partisan Committee to Defeat
Hamilton Fish, which among other activities, circulated a pamphlet juxtaposing Fish, Adolf
Hitler and Nazis. Another photo appeared to show Fish meeting with Fritz Kuhn, the "American
Hitler" who led the German-American Bund and was, at the time, serving a prison sentence for
embezzlement. Contrary to the caption -- "Hamilton Fish inspecting documents with Fritz Kuhn"
-- the Republican congressman had never met privately with Bund leader. The photo had been
taken at a 1938 public hearing that Congressman Fish had organized to discuss a proposed ban on
paramilitary groups like the Bund.
Another bit of British-engineered fake news had an ironic twist, accusing Fish of being a
pawn of a foreign power. They alleged that Nazis funneled money to Fish by renting his
properties at inflated high rates as a means of subsidizing pro-German propaganda efforts. On
October 21, Drew Pearson and Robert Allen reported the story in their hugely influential
Washington Merry-go-Round column -- a true October surprise.
Though Fish won reelection, his margin of victory was just 9,000 votes, half the size of his
win in 1938. In an after-action report to BSC and since archived at FDR's presidential library,
Griffith stated that the local Democratic Party had put practically no effort into defeating
Fish, and that an additional "$2,000 or $3,000 a week or two ahead would have been sufficient
to put it over." Even after the U.S. entered the war, the BSC stayed on Fish's case, planting
scurrilous stories in 1942 that helped cut his margin of victory to 4,000 votes. In 1944, they
finally beat him. Fish claimed it had taken "most of the New Deal Administration, half of
Moscow, $400,000, and Governor Dewey to defeat me." As the BSC history later crowed: "He might
-- with more accuracy -- have blamed BSC."
In addition to secretly intervening in campaigns , BSC funded and coordinated the
efforts of pro-intervention American political organizations and of associations of emigres
from Nazi-occupied countries that lobbied Congress and the public for a muscular U.S. response
BSC also tried to shape public opinion by feeding a stream of true, partially true and
completely fabricated stories to sympathetic reporters and columnists. Some -- like Edgar Ansel
Mowrer of the Chicago Daily News and Ulric Bell of the Louisville Courier-Journal
-- worked directly with British intelligence officers, but most of the journalists who
cooperated with BSC did so through American intermediaries. Among them was Walter Winchell, one
of the most widely read columnists of the time, who routinely ran BSC items supplied by an
Although few of the American reporters and editors who disseminated BSC propaganda were on
the British payroll, it is not an exaggeration to characterize them as British agents or
"subagents," the latter being operatives directed by individuals who communicated with
professional intelligence officers. In fact, this is precisely how the BSC thought about them.
"The conduct of political warfare was entirely dependent on secrecy," notes the BSC history.
"For that reason, the press and radio men with whom BSC maintained contact were comparable with
subagents and the intermediaries with agents. They were thus regarded." In 1991, Edmond Taylor,
an American journalist and active collaborator with the Brits during World War II, told a
historian that British intelligence agents "connived" with "Americans like myself who were
willing to go out of regular (or even legal) channels to try to bend U.S. policy towards
objectives that the British, as well as the Americans in question, considered desirable."
One of the journalists in charge of BSC's propaganda efforts described his unit's activities
in a 1942 memo to the British Foreign Office without mincing words. He wrote that his remit
included "subversive propaganda in the United States for the exposure and destruction of enemy
propaganda [and] countering isolationist and appeasement propaganda which is rapidly taking on
the shape of a Fascist movement, conscious or unconscious." Weekly reports to London from
British agents in New York tallied the number of stories that had been planted in American
The BSC history draws a straight line from planting pro-British stories in American
newspapers to Roosevelt's decision to send destroyers to England. The transfer happened,
according to BSC, because Stephenson had "means at his disposal for influencing American public
opinion in favour of aid to Britain. In fact, covert propaganda, one of the most potent weapons
which BSC employed against the enemy, was harnessed directly to this task."
The British government had a well-oiled, coordinated, worldwide strategy during World
War II for generating and disseminating rumors, which it called "sibs," short for
sibilare , the Latin word for whisper or hiss . Many of the sibs were
silly or outlandish -- for example, rumors that man-eating sharks from Australia had been
deposited in the English Channel to consume downed German aviators -- but British intelligence
took them extraordinarily seriously. "The object of propaganda rumours is in no sense to convey
the official or semi-official views of H.M.G. [His Majesty's Government] by covert means to
officials in the countries concerned," read one classified wartime report. "It is rather to
induce alarm, despondency and bewilderment among the enemies, and hope and confidence among the
friends, to whose ears it comes."
New sibs were approved by an organization called the Underground Propaganda Committee (UPC),
which met weekly in London during the war. While rumors spread in Europe by word of mouth, in
the U.S., they were disseminated through a network of friendly reporters and, starting in the
spring of 1941, by the Overseas News Agency, a news service that received subsidies from, and
was controlled by, the BSC. ONA articles appeared in newspapers around the country. Especially
prior to Pearl Harbor, these stories were picked up by newspapers in Germany, Japan and
To cite a typical example, at a meeting of the UPC on August 8, 1941, a decision was made to
release a series of sibs that, according to the meeting minutes, were "intended to suggest that
the Fuehrer, who is alone responsible in the face of a good deal of opposition for the Russian
campaign, is becoming more and more unbalanced as he realises that the vast gamble is
miscarrying." Eight days later, the New York Post ran an article supplied by ONA citing
"circumstantial evidence for a belief that Hitler is not at the Russian front, but at
Berchtesgaden suffering from a severe nervous breakdown." The article went on to assert that
the Fuehrer's personal physician had recently traveled to Switzerland to consult with the famed
psychiatrist Carl Jung to discuss "the rapid deterioration of Hitler's mental condition," which
ONA asserted was characterized by delusional rages in which he confused the contemporary battle
for Smolensk with a World War I battle in France.
On July 11, 1941, the UPC approved a sib for distribution in the U.S. newspapers, where
Japanese diplomats would read it, indicating that if Tokyo attacked Indochina, the Soviet Union
would attack Japan by air. The next day, the New York Times and other American
newspapers ran an AP story that cited "reliable persons" reporting that Japan was poised to
"make a move against French Indo-China soon." The story noted that "Russia has a large air
force within easy range of Japan's vulnerable centers of population."
In August 1941, the New York Times published ONA's report that the death of a
130-year-old Bedouin soothsayer was seen in the Middle East as "a sign of a coming defeat for
Hitler." Also in the soothsaying business, the BSC sponsored a U.S. tour for Louis de Wohl, a
Hungarian "astro-philosopher." In press conferences and an appearance at the annual convention
of the American Federation of Scientific Astrologers, de Wohl announced that the stars
predicted doom for Hitler and success for Roosevelt. Newspapers credulously reported his
statement that a "yogi once told me a man born on the date Hitler came into power would cause
his downfall. Hitler rose to power on Jan. 30, and that is Roosevelt's birth date."
The BSC operations in the U.S. weren't all frivolity and fake news; many were much
Using undercover agents, the BSC conducted a yearlong investigation of a scheme by
congressional staff to insert pro-Nazi propaganda into the Congressional Record and to
use congressional franking privileges to distribute it. The BSC then coordinated media
exposés of the franking scandal and supplied federal prosecutors with information on the
pro-Nazi plot, resulting in several convictions.
Elsewhere in Washington, the BSC targeted the embassy used by the Vichy French, illegally
tapping its phones, burglarizing embassy property and deploying a female operative to seduce
Vichy officials. That intel was then used as the basis for a series of newspaper articles
revealing Vichy diplomats' efforts to help Nazi Germany -- stories that the BSC then arranged
to be printed under the byline of an American journalist. The resulting public furor severely
curtailed the Vichy government's American activities.
With the clarity of hindsight, some may write off as a historical curiosity the
extraordinary efforts by Britain to influence American public opinion and the results of
elections, arguing that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's impetuous declaration of
war vaporized notions of neutrality, rendering efforts to propel America into the war
superfluous. But in fact, given the depth and strength of the opposition to FDR's efforts to
support Britain in 1940 and 1941 -- and the importance of that lifeline, which pro-British
propaganda made possible -- it is clear that the efforts of British intelligence officers and
their American recruits helped change history.
In the summer of 1941, the Roosevelt administration strained its political muscles in an
all-out push to persuade Congress to amend an emergency military conscription law and extend
mandatory service from one year to 2½ years. After the White House exerted all its
strength, on August 12, the House passed the extension by a one-vote margin. It is easy to
imagine, though impossible to prove, that the efforts of the BSC's operatives to bend the
public and bully politicians away from isolationism, tipped the balance in favor of the law. If
it had not squeaked through Congress, the U.S. military would have had to send tens of
thousands of men home, substantially weakening the position of American forces on the verge of
America's first experience of large-scale foreign interference in its elections holds
lessons that are relevant today, including the fact that SIS continued to target its American
political foes until at least 1944 -- long after the United States committed itself to the war.
If history is any guide, Donald Trump's inauguration may not mark the end of Russia's attempts
to sway American politicians and public opinion.
Looks like all of them were Brennan men. CIA used FBI counterintelligence and counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal.
"... We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn's insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members of Mueller's investigation. ..."
"... If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice ..."
"... A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations, doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal." ..."
"... Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation, saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look like they were something else. ..."
"... It's more likely that the CIA played the FBI with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency." ..."
"... Zainab Ahmad , a member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn , Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017 ..."
"... "Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ..."
"... I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as special counsel is also troubling ..."
"... Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic and linked to the Clintons ..."
"... Last year, Blackburn noted the connection between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei , writing: "LCILP director and FBI counsel, works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy. Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US State too." ..."
"... Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that " The Guardian reported Hannigan's announcement that he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. ..."
"... Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner." ..."
"... There are more and more articles saying that the FBI, CIA, M14 15,16 yada yada, were overly concerned about Trump. Their sin...caring too much for the USA. They attempted a coup de'etat for "our" own good...we... being "we the people". To quote Abe Lincoln "You will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, -- not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." Lincoln did not mince words ..."
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London , via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.
We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the
Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn's insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on
the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members
of Mueller's investigation. What we are left with is an indication of collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence
community in fabricating evidence of Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if Western
establishment-backed media had a spine.
Disobedient Media's previous coverage of Blackburn's work, he described his experience in intelligence:
"I've been involved in numerous investigations that involve counter-intelligence techniques in the past. I used to work for
9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism , one of the biggest tort actions in American history. I helped build a profile
of Osama bin Laden's financial and political network, which was slightly different to the one that had been built by the
CIA's Alec Station , a dedicated task force which was focused on Osama bin
Laden and Al-Qaeda. Alec Station designed its profile to hunt Osama bin Laden and disrupt his network. I thought it was flawed.
It had failed to take into account Osama's historical links to Pakistan's main political parties or that he was the figurehead
for a couple of organizations, not just Al-Qaeda."
"I also ran a few conferences for US intelligence leaders during the Bush administration. After the 9/11 Commission published
its report into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it created a public outreach program. The US National Intelligence
Conference and Exposition (
Intelcon ) was one of the avenues it used. I was responsible for creating the 'View from Abroad' track. We had guidance from
former Senator Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick, who both sat on the 9/11 Commission. We got leaders such as Sir John Chilcot and
Baroness Pauline Neville Jones to come and help share their experiences on how the US would be able to heal the rifts after 9/11."
"The US intelligence community was suffering from severe turf wars and firewalls, which were hampering counter-terrorism efforts.
They were concentrating on undermining each other rather than tackling terrorism. I had mainly concentrated on the Middle East,
but in 2003 I switched my focus to terrorism in South Asia."
Counter Terrorism, Not Counter Intelligence, Sparked Probe
In an article published by The Telegraph last November, the paper acknowledged
"It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI's investigation launched before the 2016 presidential election
into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin... Mr. Trump's allies and former advisers are raising questions about the UK's role in
the start of the probe, given many of the key figures and meetings were located in Britain... One former top White House adviser
to Mr. Trump made similar insinuations, telling this newspaper: "You know the Brits are up to their neck." The source added on
the Page wiretap application: "I think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don't want to
be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA. " [Emphasis Added]
The article cites George Papadopoulos, who asked why the "British intelligence
apparatus was weaponized against Trump and his advisers." Papadopoulos has also addressed the issue at length via Twitter. In response
to the Telegraph's coverage of the issue, Chris Blackburn wrote via Twitter
"The Telegraph story on Trump Russia acknowledges that activities involving counter-terrorism are at the heart of the scandal...not
counter-intelligence. If the [London Centre for International Law Practice] was British state, not private, some Commonwealth
countries are going to be seriously pissed off."
Blackburn spoke with Disobedient Media, saying:
" If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange
happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with
people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice.
A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA
using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations,
doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their
intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal." [Emphasis Added]
Blackburn discussed this differentiation with Disobedient Media:
"Counter-terrorism is obviously involved in more kinetic, violent political actions-concerning mass casualty events, bombings,
assassinations, poisonings, and hacking. But, the lines are blurring between them. Counter-intelligence cases have been known
to stretch for decades- often relying on nothing more than paranoia and suspicion to fuel investigations. Counter-terrorism is
also a broader discipline as it involves tactical elements like hostage rescue, crime scene investigations, and explosive specialists.
Counter-Terrorism is a collaborative effort with counter-terrorism officers working closely with local and regional police forces
and civic organizations. There is also a wider academic field around countering violent, and radical ideology which promotes terrorism
and insurgencies. Cybersecurity has become the third major discipline in intelligence. The London Center of International Law
Practice, the mysterious intelligence company that
both Papadopoulos and Mifsud , had also been working in that area."
Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation,
saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look
like they were something else.
As counter-terrorism and counterintelligence are close in tactics and methods, it would seem that they were used because they
share the same skill sets - covert evidence gathering and deception. It's basically sleight of hand. A piece of theatre would be
more precise. However, we don't know if the FBI knew it was real or make-believe. It's more likely that the CIA played the FBI
with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency."
Mueller's Team And Joseph Mifsud
Zainab Ahmad , a
member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed
out by Blackburn , Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event
in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter :
"Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event
in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George
Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She's a GCCS consultant."
Blackburn told this author:
"Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism
conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged
Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia."
Zainab Ahmad (AHMAD). Image via the Combatting Terrorism Center, West Point
"Richard Barrett, the Former Chief of Counter-Terrorism at MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence department traveled with Mifsud
to Saudi Arabia to give a talk on terrorism in 2017. Ex-CIA officers, US Defense, and US Treasury officials were also there. The
London Centre of International Law Practice's relationship to the Global Center had been established in 2014. The Global Center
on Cooperative Security made Martin Polaine and Arvinder Sambei consultants, they then became directors at the London Centre of
International Law Practice."
"The Global Center on Cooperative Security's first major UK conference was at Joseph Mifsud's London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD).
Mifsud then followed Arvinder Sambei and Nagi Idris over to the London Centre of International Law Practice. Sources have told
me that Mifsud was moonlighting as a specialist on counter-terrorism and Islamism while working at LAD which explains why he went
to work in counter-terrorism after LAD folded."
"I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped
up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as
special counsel is also troubling."
Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional
testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic
and linked to the Clintons. Critically, The Hill
"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ's fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ's international
operations, and Zainab Ahmad , an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior
counselor. Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe." [Emphasis
This point is essential, as it not only describes Ahmad's role in Mueller's team but places her at a crucial pre-investigation
Last year, Blackburn noted the connection
between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei , writing: "LCILP director and FBI counsel,
works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy.
Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US
Sambei has been described elsewhere as a "Former
practising barrister, Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service of England & Wales, and Legal Adviser at the Permanent
Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), Ministry of Defence." [British spelling has been retained]
Arvinder Sambei. Image via the Public International Law Advisory Group
That Sambei has been so thoroughly linked to organizations where Mifsud was a central figure is yet another cause of suspicion
regarding allegations that Joseph Mifsud was a shadowy, unknown Russian agent until the summer of 2016 . She is also a direct link
between Robert Mueller and Mifsud.
Blackburn wrote via Twitter : "Arvinder Sambei helped to organize LCILP's
counter-terrorism and corruption events. She used her contacts in the US to bring in Middle Eastern government officials that were
seen to be vulnerable to graft. Lisa Osofsky, former FBI Deputy General Counsel, was working with her." Below, Arvinder is pictured
at a London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP) event.
Arvinder Sambei, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
As Chris Blackburn told this author:
" Mifsud and Papadopoulos's co-director Arvinder Sambei was also the former FBI British counsel working 9/11 cases for Robert
Mueller. She also runs a consultancy which deals with Special Investigative Measure (SIMs) which is just a posh description for
covert espionage and evidence gathering. She has worked for major intelligence and national law agencies in the past. She wore
two hats as a director of London Centre and a consultant for the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), a counter-terrorism
think tank which is sponsored by the Australia, Canada, UK and US governments. Alexander Downer's former Chief of Staff while
at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now works for the Global Center. Mifsud was also due to meet with Australian
private intelligence figures in Adelaide in March 2016. So. Australia is certainly a major focus for the investigation." [Emphasis
Lisa Osofsky, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
An Embarrassment For John Brennan?
Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share
'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that "
The Guardian reported Hannigan's announcement that
he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23
Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the
New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown
to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and
Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed
so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers
at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner."
Blackburn told Disobedient Media:
"Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, who has seen most of the information gathered by Congress from the intelligence community concerning
the Russia investigation, said that if President Trump were to declassify files and present the truth to the American public,
it would " embarrass John Brennan ." I think that
is pretty concrete for me, but it's not definitive. I know the polarization and spin in Washington has become perverse, but that
statement is pretty specific for me. If Brennan is involved, it is most probably through Papadopoulos who sparked off the 'official'
investigation at the FBI. He also made sure the Steele dossier was spread through the US government."
Blackburn added: "Chris Steele was also working on FIFA projects, and a source has told me that he was working to investigate
the Russian and Qatari World Cup bids. The London Centre of International Law Practice has been working with Majed Garoub, the former
Saudi legal representative of FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. He's also been working against the Qatari bid. Steele likes
to get paid twice for his investigations."
"Mifsud has also been associated with Prince Turki the former Saudi intelligence chief, Mifsud and the London Academy of Diplomacy
used to train Saudi diplomats and intelligence figures while Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to London. Turki is a close friend
of Bill Clinton and John Brennan. Nawaf Obaid was also courting Mifsud and tried to get him a cushy job working with CNN's Freedom
Project at Link Campus in Rome. He also knows John Brennan. Intelligence agencies like to give out professional gifts like this
plum academic position for completing missions. In the US, it is widely known that intelligence agencies gift the children of
assets to get them into prestigious Ivy League schools."
At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western intelligence agencies. We are left
with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy, whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude
that the gambit was initially developed with participation of John Brennan and UK intelligence. Following this, Mueller inherited
and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we know today.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert
a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.
What ********. Britain was part of the group pulling of 911 along with the American and Jewish establishment. Blackburn was
the inside guy, posing as an outsider, to deflect attention from the real perpetrators. These people always have agents on both
sides of every issue in the same way they fund two "opposing" political parties and fund two "opposing" sides in the media.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal
to subvert a US Presidency , and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power .
It's called TREASON .
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies , giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere , is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than
SteeleGate---his mate Skripal, boss Pablo Miller----novichok---Porton Down---anything to blame Russia in the end. After 30
dys of shutdown personnel of CIA, FBI and DOJ can be changed legally: draining of the swamp and DECLAS can begin with proper Military
Tribunals in place. This according to Q who shared all of this, so it was not a conspiracy theory that the Q team exposed, but
just MSM and Deep State in their last panic mode. Justice will now be able to follow: maybe rel end of endless wars too!
There are more and more articles saying that the FBI, CIA, M14 15,16 yada yada, were overly concerned about Trump. Their sin...caring
too much for the USA. They attempted a coup de'etat for "our" own good...we... being "we the people". To quote Abe Lincoln "You will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, -- not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." Lincoln did not mince words
So now we have an international conspiracy of care. Not one power grubber in the group. A syndicate of misunderstood do gooders.
But not having the consent of the people, but rather trying to undo, and foil the consent of the people.
This part of the Declaration applies
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal
to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power..."
Why do you not call it a coup d'etat? That is what it is, nothing less. If it were about something Trump did you would use
the harshest possible language. Why not tell the truth here. Let the American people know what happened.
Trump's BIGGEST single mistake was making Sessions AG and then failing to fire Sessions
after Sessions recused himself. We now know Sessions is Trump's Judas Iscariot.
How about the very well documented and obvious Crimes & Felonies:
1. On Rosenstein's advice, Sessions recused himself from getting involved with any Trump
campaign related investigations - here come the Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Sessions appoints Rosenstein assistant AG.
3. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
4. Trump fires Comey.
5. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
6. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo (stuff he made up) because he knew it would trigger
a special council to investigate the Trump campaign for Russia collusion (how did Comey know
that? Was it part of the plan with Rosenstein?)
7. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special council
with open authority to investigate "collusion", a suspected activity that is not a crime if
it did exist. We now know Mueller's appointment & authority might be illegal.
8. Rosenstein & Wray stonewall congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI
9. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate obvious Hitlary, DOJ & FBI
10. Sessions appoints John Huber, Obama appointee & swamp rat, to assist Inspector
General without any power to subpoena or seat a Grand Jury.
11. Stormy Daniels is used to demoralize Trump and is assisted by FBI. Since when does the
FBI get involved in the kind of civil actions raised by a prostitute?
12. Michael Cohen is raided by FBI regarding an issue that should be reserved for state
court. Attorney client privilege is violated. This alone is a criminal act but nobody to
13. Months before the Cohen raid, Rosenstein-Mueller used the Cohen-Stormy situation to
launch investigation into Cohen and thereby spy on Trump conversations with his attorney.
14. Judge appointed to hear the Cohen case is Prog Hack & Soros-Clinton crony Kimba
Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller conspired to assist the
"Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart all efforts to indict Clintons and Obama and
expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.
"... It's likely that the Brazilian and Colombian governments don't command the loyalty of their armed forces (especially the foot soldiers who would have shoulder the burden of invasion) to the extent that the Venezuelan government under Maduro does of its own. Especially if money allocated to the armed forces in Brazil and Colombia has gone to a few favored individuals in the officer hierarchies while the grunts have seen no increased pay or support, or have even seen their pay levels dwindle as their responsibilities grow. ..."
"... That's a possible scenario in Brazil given that since Dilma Rousseff's impeachment as President in 2016 it has been governed by corrupt neoliberal politicians. ..."
"... In Venezuela's situation, the crux is in how prepared are the Venezuelan officers to defend their own country on an officer's salary and on promises of future rewards by Maduro and his team. Therefore, nationalism and patriotism of the military may be that little straw which tips the balance in favour of keeping Venezuela free. At least we hope ..."
"... The last two places where Gene's revolutions have worked out were Macedonia and Armenia, but there is not much there to steal (rather profitless victories). ..."
Far more likely that Brazil and Colombia refuse to commit any troops or other support for a US-led coalition to invade
Venezuela. These countries have long borders going through thinly populated tropical forest or mountain areas with Venezuela.
They don't want the prospect of fighting continuous border wars with militias that would sap their own military strength
and which could go deep into their own territories. Imagine how unpopular that would make their current governments with
It's likely that the Brazilian and Colombian governments don't command the loyalty of their armed forces (especially
the foot soldiers who would have shoulder the burden of invasion) to the extent that the Venezuelan government under Maduro
does of its own. Especially if money allocated to the armed forces in Brazil and Colombia has gone to a few favored
individuals in the officer hierarchies while the grunts have seen no increased pay or support, or have even seen their pay
levels dwindle as their responsibilities grow.
That's a possible scenario in Brazil given that since Dilma Rousseff's impeachment as President in 2016 it has been
governed by corrupt neoliberal politicians.
Thanks for providing further detail into the inner workings of the US appointed Columbian and
Brazilian military. I do not think that those two militaries do not want to get involved in
Venezuela, but they are not volunteering forward to be the thieve's fools on an officer's
Any military which would leave its border is a mercenary, which means that the
pay/benefits must be more proportional to the loot than even to the risk (i.e. they want a
In Venezuela's situation, the crux is in how prepared are the Venezuelan officers
to defend their own country on an officer's salary and on promises of future rewards by Maduro and his team. Therefore, nationalism and patriotism of the military may be that little
straw which tips the balance in favour of keeping Venezuela free. At least we hope.
The second important factor is that the Gene Sharp's "non-violent action" regime change
system (revolution in a box) has been busted somewhat. The new potential victims are not as
naive and as unprepared as the initial victims of the "branded revolutions" were.
the resistance to thievery is increasing. In case of Venezuela, the "revolutionaries",
including the Random Guy, have been trained by the late Gene's best apostles, organisation
Otpor, but it still has not worked out yet. The last two places where Gene's revolutions have
worked out were Macedonia and Armenia, but there is not much there to steal (rather
I like to view Gene Sharp as the Lenin of the end of the 20th century. It is just so
sad how much of human history is all about thieving on the back of highbrow principles and
pretend-humanitarian ideologies . I pity people who argue about communism versus
capitalism and any other ideologies. C'est tout la meme chose, someone is always taking
someone else's women and cattle, only packaged in (MSM) verbal bullshit.
And already, more details are leaking out about the Democrats' plans to launch a wide
ranging investigation that not only will re-litigate the collusion narrative, but will also
reportedly focus on allegations of money laundering and other financial improprieties.
Mueller is just the beginning. House Democrats plan a vast probe of President Trump and
Russia -- with a heavy focus on money laundering -- that will include multiple committees and
dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.
The state of play: The aggressive plans were outlined yesterday by a Democratic member of
Congress at a roundtable for Washington reporters. The member said Congress plans interviews
with new witnesses, and may go back to earlier witnesses who "stonewalled" under the
Why it matters: The reporters, many of them steeped in the special counsel's
investigation, came away realizing that House Dems don't plan to depend on Robert Mueller for
the last word on interference in the 2016 election.
Instead, Dems will use their new subpoena power to produce a voluminous exposé of
The investigation will involve multiple committees, and by all accounts be far more critical
than the House probe that ended last year.
At least three committees are already involved: The House Intelligence Committee is taking
the lead, coordinating with House Financial Services on money-laundering questions and with
House Foreign Affairs on Russia.
Democrats are considering ways to uncover what was said in a Trump private meeting with
Putin, "whether that's subpoenaing the notes or subpoenaing the interpreter or other
On the issue of Trump family finances, the president said he's "not in a position to draw
"I am concerned that he may have drawn a red line that the Department of Justice may be
"If we didn't look at his business...we wouldn't know what we know now about his efforts
to pursue what may have been the most lucrative deal of his life, the Trump Tower in Moscow -
something the special counsel's office has said stood to earn the family hundreds of millions
"Now, most of his stuff isn't building anymore: It's licensing , and it doesn't make that
kind of money. So, this would have been huge."
"[T]he fact that the president says now: 'Well, it's not illegal and I might have lost the
election. Why should I miss out, basically, on all that money?' He may very well take the
same position now: 'I might not be re-elected, and so why shouldn't I...still pursue
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise: Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff (who are
two prime candidates for the source of the latest round of leaks) have made no secret of their
plans to subpoena
Deutsche Bank to learn more about its lending relationship with the president. And as Dems
prepare to let the subpoeanas fly, we imagine we'll be learning more in the near future.
Adam Schitt, a real slimy, corrupt politician. Maxine Waters, another financial and
political criminal. If you could get them to spill their guts you'd be amazed at all the
transgressions they have committed during their careers (they'd go to prison for certain).
These two should be shot off into space or something. Shouldn't be allowed to continue
harrassing the POTUS.
Since the Mueller probe is ending and no longer serves as a shield from having to answer
questions concerning his own corruption, Adam Schiff had to get a new probe going so he'd
have an excuse to conveniently remain silent on questions he'd rather not address. Schiff is
the very one who should be investigated.
I think the Dems have switched tactics; forget about impeaching Donnie's while he's in
office when he could theoretically pardon himself, and instead focus on dragging out the
investigation(s) until he has left office.
When Donnie realizes this, he'll be EVEN MORE compliant with serving the neocons, the Deep
State and The Swamp.
I always doubted that Donnie ever intended to "drain the swamp," but I fear that he'll
become an even bigger neocon warmonger now that the Dems have him checkmate.
The results of the investigation don't matter, the Dems will simply pull more ******** out
of their collective Go-Green asses and start new investigations, all financed by the
taxpayers of course.
The real collusion of course is between Trump and Israel/AIPAC, but ssshhhhhhh, you're not
allowed to talk about that. That's a big """""secret.""""
"... Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the parameters of the debate." ..."
"... "When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media." ..."
"... "And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though they haven't been convicted of anything." ..."
"... "That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said – I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that." ..."
"... Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.. ..."
Cohen has largely been banished from mainstream media.
"I had been arguing for years -- very much against the American political media grain --
that a new US/Russian Cold War was unfolding -- driven primarily by politics in Washington, not
Moscow," Cohen writes in War with Russia. "For this perspective, I had been largely
excluded from influential print, broadcast and cable outlets where I had been previously
On the stage at Busboys and Poets with Cohen was Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of
The Nation magazine, and Robert Borosage, co-founder of the Campaign for America's
Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship
imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union.
"Until some period of time before Trump, on the question of what America's policy toward
Putin's Kremlin should be, there was a reasonable facsimile of a debate on those venues that
had these discussions," Cohen said. "Are we allowed to mention the former Charlie Rose for
example? On the long interview form, Charlie would have on a person who would argue for a very
hard policy toward Putin. And then somebody like myself who thought it wasn't a good idea."
"Occasionally that got on CNN too. MSNBC not so much. And you could get an op-ed piece
published, with effort, in the New York Times or Washington Post ."
"Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times six or
seven years ago. But then it stopped. And to me, that's the fundamental difference between this
Cold War and the preceding Cold War."
"I will tell you off the record – no, I'm not going to do it," Cohen said. "Two
exceedingly imminent Americans, who most op-ed pages would die to get a piece by, just to say
they were on the page, submitted such articles to the New York Times , and they were
rejected the same day. They didn't even debate it. They didn't even come back and say –
could you tone it down? They just didn't want it."
"Now is that censorship? In Italy, where each political party has its own newspaper, you
would say – okay fair enough. I will go to a newspaper that wants me. But here, we are
used to these newspapers."
"Remember how it works. I was in TV for 18 years being paid by CBS. So, I know how these
things work. TV doesn't generate its own news anymore. Their actual reporting has been
de-budgeted. They do video versions of what is in the newspapers."
"Look at the cable talk shows. You see it in the New York Times and Washington
Post in the morning, you turn on the TV at night and there is the video version. That's
just the way the news business works now."
"The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate
these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in
these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have
been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the
parameters of the debate."
"If you are not, then you struggle to create your own alternative media. It's new in my
lifetime. I know these imminent Americans I mentioned were shocked when they were just told no.
It's a lockdown. And it is a form of censorship."
"When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident
voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes
they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media."
"Dissidents created what is known as samizdat – that's typescript that you circulate
by hand. Gorbachev, before he came to power, did read some samizdat. But it's no match for
newspapers published with five, six, seven million copies a day. Or the three television
networks which were the only television networks Soviet citizens had access to."
"And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some
other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like
keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though
they haven't been convicted of anything."
"That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said
– I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are
doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that."
Cohen appears periodically on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. And that rankled one person
in the audience at Busboys and Poets, who said he worried that Cohen's perspective on Russia
can be "appropriated by the right."
"Trump can take that and run on a nationalistic platform – to hell with NATO, to
hell with fighting these endless wars, to do what he did in 2016 and get the votes of people
who are very concerned about the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia," the
Cohen says that on a personal level, he likes Tucker Carlson "and I don't find him to be a
racist or a nationalist."
"Nationalism is on the rise around the world everywhere," Cohen said. "There are
different kinds of nationalism. We always called it patriotism in this country, but we have
always been a nationalistic country."
"Fox has about three to four million viewers at that hour," Cohen said. "If I am not
permitted to give my take on American/Russian relations on any other mass media, and by the
way, possibly talk directly to Trump, who seems to like his show, and say – Trump is
making a mistake, he should do this or do that instead -- I don't get many opportunities
– and I can't see why I shouldn't do it."
"I get three and a half to four minutes," Cohen said. "I don't see it as consistent with my
mission, if that's the right word, to say no. These articles I write for The Nation ,
which ended up in my book, are posted on some of the most God awful websites in the world. I
had to look them up to find out how bad they really are. But what can I do about it?"
B you check out the brief awaiting adjudication, whereby they state that they will appeal to
to SCOTUS. Mueller is unconstitutional and plausible criminal.
Congress Has Not "By Law" Vested The Attorney General With Authority to Appoint the
Special Counsel as an Inferior Officer.
The principal question before this Court is whether there is any statute that clearly
conveys power to the Attorney General to appoint a private attorney as Special Counsel at the
level of an inferior officer. The Special Counsel claims that §§ 515 and 533(1) do
the job. But the Spe
cial Counsel's "plain-text" analysis redrafts both provisions in material ways.
He also places extensive reliance on historic practice and predecessor versions of §
515 to aid his redrafting.
None of this squares with controlling and settled law. Here, the plain text of
§§ 515 and 533(1) does not clearly confer authority to appoint any special counsel,
much less one as an inferior officer.
"... Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket" that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media. ..."
Aaron is gong to break down "Russiagate," taking a sober look at the media frenzy of
"bombshell" stories asserting a Russian conspiracy behind the 2016 election.
Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the
longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket"
that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of
the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and
conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media.
And in a prior NBC News article Tuesday morning, Dilanian
spelled out :
After two years and 200 interviews , the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the
end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a
conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia , according to both Democrats and
Republicans on the committee.
MSNBC anchor Hallie Jackson and her guest panelists' faces looked visibly confused and
uncomfortable as they learned the Senate report is going in the opposite direction of
everything MSNBC and other mainstream outlets have been breathlessly reporting on a near 24/7
More importantly, if this is a precursor of what the Mueller report concludes in a few
weeks/months, the TV station that built its current reputation on the premise of Russian
collusion, may have no option but to go on indefinite hiatus.
Watch the segment below, with host Hallie Jackson appearing to grow exasperated by the
2:20 mark : "If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, points to these
conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I am not guilty of
conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Dilanian noted that while the Republican chair of the committee made what he characterized
as "partisan" comments the week prior, it turned out be unanimous fact. "What I found," he
said, "is that Democrats don't dispute that characterization ."
But perhaps sensing how "contrary" to the network's own hysterical 'Russiagate' coverage his
reporting was, he tried to soften the blow, saying, "But, again, no direct proof of a
conspiracy. As one democratic aide said to me, 'we never thought we were going to find a
Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let's collude, but the question is how do we
interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.'"
Hallie Jackson followed with further probing: "Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want
to make sure I'm understanding this..." and asked "If and when the president, as he may
inevitably do, points to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee
found I'm not guilty of conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Her face looking rather incredulous at this point, Dilanian responded by invoking the
Mueller investigation, reassuring her his inquiry is not complete and likely could uncover more
information. But then the bottom line: "That said, Trump will claim vindication through this,
and he'll be partially right," he said. But Dilanian also noted the Senate intel committee has
access to classified material, which means "if there was an intercept between officers
suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And
that has not emerged."
"So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication," he repeated.
Yet after all this, during the full segment Vice News guest panelist Shawna Thomas actually
invoked impeachment in what appeared a desperate attempt to grasp for anything . "There's two
things I question about [the report]," she began.
"Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate intelligence
committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems,
to start to clamor, even if there isn't 'conspiracy' or 'collusion', for impeachment?" said
But then she tried to deflate the whole thing, upsetting as it was for purveyors of the
collusion narrative: "The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it's all stuff we knew
already," she said.
Right... cause in MSNBC's Russiagate-land "the walls are closing in" on Trump, constantly.
Except the network just woke up to the reality that it's not the case.
We only wonder what Rachel Maddow will be left with after this.
"... it is important to remember that Wasserman-Schultz and Snipes are merely the public faces of an extensive, deeply problematic system of corruption. It is then also essential to understand who, and what mechanisms, have allowed figures like Wasserman-Schultz, Snipes, the Awan brothers, and others to go unprosecuted. ..."
"... As readers may recall , Snipes illegally destroyed ballots from the 2016 primary race between Wasserman-Schultz and Tim Canova. The Sun Sentinel explained Snipes's direct involvement in the destruction of ballots, writing: ..."
"... Canova's contention that US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have been responsible for preventing legal consequences for Brenda Snipes is profoundly concerning. Last year, Rosenstein faced heavy criticism in the wake of the publication of the infamous FISA Memo. Last year, The Daily Beast described the memo's account of surveillance abuse, saying: "[The memo] specifically names FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein along with former FBI Director James Comey." ..."
"... Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf of associates of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz's brother may also have been involved in protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova's allegations raise a myriad of new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes? ..."
"... "In stories like this, the image painted of the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in a manner far more akin to organized crime than to a governmental body." ..."
A vast caldera of public rage has rightfully been aimed at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and
Brenda Snipes over the last few years. However, it is important to remember that
Wasserman-Schultz and Snipes are merely the public faces of an extensive, deeply problematic
system of corruption. It is then also essential to understand who, and what mechanisms, have
allowed figures like Wasserman-Schultz, Snipes, the Awan brothers, and others to go
This issue became clearer earlier this week when former congressional candidate Tim Canova
may recall , Snipes illegally destroyed ballots from the 2016 primary race between
Wasserman-Schultz and Tim Canova. The Sun Sentinel explained Snipes's
direct involvement in the destruction of ballots, writing:
"Canova, who was checking for voting irregularities in the race, sought to look at the paper
ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months later
when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in
September, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending.
Snipes called the action a "mistake" during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes
were mislabeled and there was "nothing on my part that was intentional" about destroying the
Big League Politics also reported: "On
May 11, 2018, the Florida Circuit Court granted Plaintiff Canova summary judgment, and found
that Snipes had violated numerous state and federal statutes, including laws punishable as
felonies with up to five years in prison. The Court's ruling made clear that Snipes'
destruction of ballots was illegal on several separate counts."
Disobedient Media spoke with Tim Canova, who told us:
"I was recently informed by election officials in Florida that it's the Deputy AG, Rod
Rosenstein, who would have been the DOJ official making the decision not to move forward with
a criminal investigation in our ballot destruction case. I also believe that Steve Wasserman,
an Assistant US Attorney at the DOJ headquarters in Washington, DC, may well have been
involved in the decision, particularly since Wasserman spoke out publicly against prosecuting
Awan in the days before Awan's sentencing."
A Floridian official set to prosecute Snipes was also said to have backed down after a trip
to Washington DC, which involved meetings with the DOJ. Canova stated:
"Last May, the acting US Attorney for South Florida, Ben Greenberg, was about to open a
criminal investigation into Snipes's destruction of our ballots when he flew to DC for a week
of meetings at DOJ. When he returned, the investigation was off."
Canova's contention that US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have been responsible
for preventing legal consequences for Brenda Snipes is profoundly concerning. Last year,
Rosenstein faced heavy criticism in the wake of the publication of the infamous FISA Memo. Last
year, The Daily
Beast described the memo's account of surveillance abuse, saying: "[The memo] specifically
names FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein along with
former FBI Director James Comey."
The Washington Times reported: "The
memo from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee shows that at least one questionable
surveillance warrant application was signed by Mr. Rosenstein, who already had a difficult
relationship with President Trump. The memo said information supporting the application was
obtained from a partisan anti-Trump dossier funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the
Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan
activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf
of associates of Hillary Clinton.
Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz's brother may also have been involved in
protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova's allegations raise a myriad of
new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes?
Undeniably, the most obvious answer is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the alleged beneficiary of
Snipes's illegal ballot destruction. Similarly, one wonders what connection such a decision may
have with the DOJ's refusal to prosecute the Awan scandal, a move from which Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz also directly benefited.
In light of this, we are led to ask: Who benefits from shielding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
from the blowback of multiple national scandals? What would induce the DOJ to prop up such an
Farts and Leaves,
"In stories like this, the image painted of the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in
a manner far more akin to organized crime than to a governmental body."
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Dis ob Media-good report-thanks.
This abolute outrageous info about snipes, the wassermanschultzes, awans, dimocrats in congress shouts loudly that we really
have no system of justice in this country, at least for the powerful and connected. This is outrageous-where in the hell is
the DOJ, oh, that is the problem with ,rosenstein, prob the clintons, et al
My guess is wasserman schultz is mossad-to my mind, there can be no other explanation.
It appears that George Webb has been shut down, he was bird dogging this info, now daily caller luke has cut him off.
The vomit factor on this one is off the scale!
At the very least, why hasn't Trump or his new AG fired Rosenstein?
Probably because the stay behind networks from the Sessions/Obama/Holder and even Bush eras, have so much entanglement
into the system, that change cannot be made in quick order. One only can hope that T-man will chop off the head of the snake
and not just the tail.
the two key extracts from the article are these:
"... the Department of Justice is one of a federal agency that functions in a manner far more akin to organized
crime than to a governmental body. The DOJ's refusal prosecute the Awans, and Rosenstein's alleged decision to prevent
legal consequences for Brenda Snipes shows us that corruption allowed to stagnate in Broward County affected the whole
"... the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute such crimes as detailed in the Awan scandal and as committed by
Snipes, how can the public hope to hold their government accountable for election interference and other forms of
the case is clear. the DoJ has, again, acted against the national interest and the staff involved are guilty of electoral
fraud, sedition and treason. the awan brothers sold congressional secrets to Pakistan (and mossad probably).
cui bono? from not prosecuting these blatant, obvious AND DISCLOSED crimes? there is a fetid swamp of criminality here and a
flagrant, in your face, contempt for the american people and their security.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? where is the oversight of this criminality? the inspector general? internal affairs? where
are the lawyers that leap to defend civil rights abuses against covington schoolkids, but not issues such as this?
" Congress paid the Awans more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources
suggest to be three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at
the same level of alleged competence. "
The US Dept of INjustice is a criminal organization, of course it is protecting those who subvert elections at the
direction of the Oligarchs.
Our whole system of voting has been carefully crafted and tuned to ensure the USA Citizen has almost no effect on the
functioning of government.
One thing not mentioned in the article, was the dead body of federal prosecutor Beranton J. Whisenant Jr. found on the
beach in Debbie's District...Dead from a suicide gunshot to the head...he used a "magic gun" I suppose, because local police
think in "floated off in the surf" FFS
WASHINGTON -- Expressing frustration at the obnoxious, nonstop attempts to aid his investigation, special counsel Robert
Mueller was reportedly annoyed Friday that a chipper, overeager Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) keeps constantly sending him
evidence he's already uncovered. "Christ, he just emailed me ...
Ostensibly big stories erupt, command universal attention, and then evaporate like the
dewfall on a summer morning, their place taken by the next equally big, no less ephemeral
story. Call it the Michael Wolff syndrome. Just a year ago, Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House took the political world by storm, bits and pieces winging across
the Internet while the book itself reportedly sold a cool million copies in the
first four days of its release. Here was the unvarnished truth of TrumpWorld with a capital
T. Yet as quickly as Fire and Fury appeared, it disappeared, leaving nary a trace.
99 cents will get you a copy of that same hardcover book. As a contribution to deciphering
our times, the value of Wolff's volume is about a dollar less than its current selling price. A
mere year after its appearance, it's hard to recall what all the fuss was about.
Smaller scale versions of the Wolff syndrome play themselves out almost daily. Remember the
recent bombshell BuzzFeed report charging that Trump had ordered his lawyer Michael Cohen to lie
about a proposed hotel project in Moscow? For a day or so, it was the all-encompassing,
stop-the-presses-get-me-rewrite version of reality, the revelation -- finally! -- that would
bring down the president. Then the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that key aspects
of the report were "not accurate" and the 24/7 buzz created by that scoop vanished as quickly
as it had appeared.
... ... ...
And so it goes, in an endlessly churning cycle: "breaking news" goes viral; commentators
rush in to explain what-it-all-means; the president himself retaliates by lashing out on
Twitter ("The Greatest Witch Hunt in the History of our Country!"), much to the delight of his
critics. This tit-for-tat exchange continues until the next fresh tidbit of "breaking news"
gives the cycle another vigorous turn.
Go to a large library and cross-reference James Jesus Angleton, Kim Philby, Miles Copeland and Nicholas Elliott in the "spy" books.
Soon you will begin to see that MI6 was there at the OSS and later CIA inceptions.
At the hidden deep levels, both these agencies serve the GLOBALIST' enterprise, and have since the start.
Then you will understand Steele and the "five eyes" involvement in the Russia hoax.
Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced New York financier who served 13 months in prison for
soliciting an underaged girl for prostitution, has served his time, and despite all of the
negative press surrounding his "Lolita Express" and the many celebrities and politicians -
President Bill Clinton and disgraced actor Kevin Spacey - who have reportedly traveled to
his "orgy island", he will likely live out his life as a free man (unless new offenses are
But thanks to a series published by the Miami Herald last year that
delved into how prosecutors worked with powerful defense attorneys to ensure Epstein received
such a lenient sentence. The expose shed a light on the role played by Alex Acosta, who went on
to become Trump's Secretary of Labour, in handing down the light sentence. Acosta was the US
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time Epstein's sentence was handed
Now, thanks to those stories, the DOJ has reportedly opened an investigation into the
conduct of DOJ attorneys in the case, and whether they committed "professional misconduct" in
their working relationship with Epstein's attorneys.
The probe was opened in response to a request lodged by Sen. Ben Sasse, a a Nebraska
Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who raised questions about the case
after reading the Herald's stories about how Acosta and other DOJ attorneys worked with defense
attorneys to cut a lenient plea deal for Epstein back in 2008, per the Herald.
At the time, the FBI was run by Robert Mueller.
Though the reasons for the lenient deal could be rooted in the natural advantages of the
wealthy, one Twitter user who did a deep dive into a cache of redacted FBI Vault documents
released last year raised the possibility that Epstein could have been an informant for the
FBI, providing information on executives from failed investment bank Bear Stearns in exchange
for the lenient sentence (though there's nothing in his guilty plea that suggested he provided
To be sure, records show that Epstein passed a polygraph test showing that he didn't know
any of the girls he solicited were under the age of 18 at the time. Also, the case has taken on
renewed importance since opposition research shops
tried to link President Trump to Epstein during the campaign.
While that hasn't been conclusively proven, it could have been part of a separate agreement
that has yet to be disclosed.
It is very sad that FBI has decided to just prosecute this EVIL MAN and Child Pedophilia
enabler, just because Muller is investigating Trump. They are all in on it. They are
If I was one of the victims or the mother, I would do anything to destroy this man. Yes, I
know that Catholic church is also as guilty. But this sick faced Epstein with his evil smile,
has ruined many lives for his famous clients.
Child pedophilia is a disease wired in the brain and the only way to get rid of them, is
to execute them. There is no other solution. Imagine about the father who walked into his
house and witnessed his son getting raped by his sitter (man).
From a personal experience, when a burglar came to rub our house "As a minor not even a
teenage, I woke up with this stranger molesting me.". I had no idea what he was doing, but
that event gave me insomnia for the rest of my life.
So did Epstein provide the FBI with information for prosecutions? Doesn't seem like it.
Epstein knows the Clintons, Prince Andrew, Trump, and many others and they pressured the govt
to back off. Without any facts, the FBI cooperation story is just spin. His connected friends
have a lot to lose if he talks. I doubt that Mr. Epstein will live a long life.
Remember all those people on Clinton team who were interviewed by the FBI and granted
immunity? I remember. The crowd here was excited - oh, they are going to indict her today,
oh, they are going to drag her off tomorrow first thing... Turned out, all those immunities
were granted to protect them from future prosecutions.
Nothing may come out of this. Nothing, perhaps, will ever come out of this. The victim of
all these witch hunting is sitting in the President's chair; and when he is not interested in
getting justice for himself, or to uphold justice for the people, why should I worry about
justice for this world?
If this happened, if they focused on just WHAT THE **** HAPPENED in the Epstein case, I
might be a believer in our justice system. Even if it was just a minute. It could sweep up
Trump. It could flush the Clintons straight to hell.
"... The 38-year-old Soviet-born businessman now lives in the United States. He trained as a military interpreter at university and changed his name when he entered the U.S., his father said ..."
"... And Millian - real name Sergei Kukut or, in Belarussian, Siarhei Kukuts - has hinted that he could be in danger, blaming shadowy forces in London. He said that thanked God he was 'alive and healthy' and is able to 'tell the truth' that he had no involvement in the allegations against Trump, with whom he has claimed to have a business relationship. Trump has angrily denied any sexual impropriety in Moscow, and also dismissed claims from Millian that the pair had a business link, while Putin has denied holding 'kompromat' on the new U.S. president. ..."
"... his father Milediy Kukut revealed: 'He has asked the US government for protection - but was told he had to sort it all himself.' ..."
Published: 15:49 EST, 31 January 2017 | Updated: 18:10 EST, 31 January 2017
The mysterious 'source' of explosive and unsubstantiated allegations that Donald Trump
cavorted with Russian prostitutes asked for 'protection' from the US government, but was turned
down, his father has disclosed.
Soviet-born businessman Sergei Millian, 38, who Dailymail.com can reveal was trained as a
military interpreter before moving to the U.S., allegedly boasted to third parties that Moscow
had compromising video of the US president engaging in lewd sexual acts that could be used to
These dynamite assertions were then - it has been claimed - passed without his knowledge by
at least one intermediary to British ex-MI6 agent Christoper Steele.
Those allegations formed the purported basis of the former spy's 'dirty dossier' which
rocked Washington when its contents became public.
Now it can be disclosed that Millian has voiced fears for his own safety, at the same time
as denying that he was in any way the source for the dossier.
Protection: Sergei Millian asked for the U.S. government to protect him after he was named
as the source of the most salacious claims in the dirty dossier. He denies having information
on Trump, whom he is now thought to have first met in 2007
Defiant: The 38-year-old Soviet-born businessman now lives in the United States. He trained
as a military interpreter at university and changed his name when he entered the U.S., his
Back home: Sergei Millian (right) remains a frequent visitor to his family in a dilapidated
village in the former Soviet republic of Belarus, his father Milediy Kukut (left) told
Impoverished: One-party state Belarus is impoverished and Sharkaŭshchyna, a town 125
miles from the capital of Minsk, is among its most economically troubled areas
Upbringing: Millian's parents still live at the second-floor, Soviet-era apartment where he
was brought up. His father drives the red Lada car (left), another Soviet-era h
Location: Belarus is a key ally of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Millian's native town of
Sharkaŭshchyna is 125 miles from its capital, Minsk
His father told DailyMail.com that the businessman had requested protection in the U.S.,
where he has lived since 2001.
And Millian - real name Sergei Kukut or, in Belarussian, Siarhei Kukuts - has hinted that he
could be in danger, blaming shadowy forces in London. He said that thanked God he was 'alive and healthy' and is able to 'tell the truth' that he
had no involvement in the allegations against Trump, with whom he has claimed to have a
business relationship. Trump has angrily denied any sexual impropriety in Moscow, and also dismissed claims from
Millian that the pair had a business link, while Putin has denied holding 'kompromat' on the
new U.S. president.
With Steele in hiding, and Millian last seen in Atlanta, DailyMail.com went to his native
Belarus, an economic basket case labeled the last dictatorship in Europe under strongman
Alexander Lukashenko, a longstanding Putin ally.
At the dilapidated town where Milliam was brought up, his father Milediy Kukut revealed: 'He
has asked the US government for protection - but was told he had to sort it all himself.'
Kukut, 63, said he did not know if his son had approached the FBI or another US law
enforcement agency after he was 'besieged' in the wake of The Wall Street Journal linking him
to the dossier.
"... Who provided former British spy Christopher Steele with the salacious and unverified information in the dossier? That's one question I'd like clarity on ..."
"... And it would also be interesting to hear from Sergei Millian, who is widely reported to be an unwitting source of information contained in the dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... There is a reason why Republicans did not do so when they controlled the house. Think Uniparty! The Dems and Reps are two faces of the same party! The Uniparty did not want this to happen! Now that the Reps are minority, they can act like Reps because majority Dems won't grant their request! See how that works!!!! ..."
"... Think Uniparty! Then everything will suddenly start to make sense to you! ..."
"... Democrat politicians are lying to the people who care about MUH RUSSIA. These politicians don't care about it. They never did. From the start it was nothing more than a way to keep a certain powerful faction of their party in line by dangling MUH RUSSIA keys in front of them. ..."
"... They can't stop because the mindless rage monsters they whipped up (aka the shrieking base of the ever-growing left wing of the Party that lives on Cuntbook and Twatter) will turn on them if they do ..."
Making matters more interesting, Republicans today also put forward a motion to subpoena
around a dozen witnesses. Those people, including officials involved in the FBI's Russia
investigation as well as people likely to be familiar with the compilation of the Steele
dossier. Of course, those people may not say what the Democrats want to hear so the Democrats
rejected the motion.
It's actually a brilliant idea – we need more interviews. I think the Republicans
should pounce on this opportunity to question these witnesses. Hopefully, they will ask some
poignant questions we still don't have answers to.
Who provided former British spy Christopher Steele with the salacious and unverified
information in the dossier? That's one question I'd like clarity on.
"Since the Democrats previously sought testimony from these individuals, such as James
Baker and Sergei Millian, we assume they still want to speak to them," said Jack Langer,
spokesman for committee Republican Rep. Devin Nunes.
"It's even possible some witnesses can help explain the 'more than circumstantial
evidence' of Trump-Russia collusion that the Democrats claimed to have found two years ago
but, inexplicably, never revealed to Committee Republicans or anyone else."
James Baker is the former FBI General Counsel who was close friends with former FBI
Director James Comey. Baker is now the subject of a leak investigation. He reportedly accepted
documents from Perkins Coie, the law firm used by the Democratic National Committee and the
Hillary Clinton campaign to pay for the unverified dossier.
And it would also be interesting to hear from
Sergei Millian, who is widely reported to be an unwitting source of information contained
in the dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
These witnesses would surely have some interesting information to share if they were under
questioned by the committee. I'm not sure it's information that would benefit Schiff's claim
that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But I'm certain it would shed
light on what really happened with the dossier and the internal machinations of the FBI's probe
into the campaign.
Read the press release below from the House Intelligence
Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued the following
statement today on sending the transcripts of interviews from the committee's Russia
investigation to the Special Counsel's office.
Republicans are happy the Democrats are joining us in reiterating what the Republican-led
committee already voted to do in September 2018 -- make all the transcripts available to the
executive branch, including the Special Counsel's office, as part of the process of
publishing them for the American people to see.
In light of the unacceptable delay in the Director of National Intelligence's
declassification review, we hope the Democrats will now join us in further increasing
transparency by voting to immediately publish all the unclassified transcripts that we
previously sent to the executive branch.
Additionally, we call on our Democratic colleagues to grant our request to subpoena
numerous witnesses whose testimony the Democrats had previously sought in connection with the
committee's Russia investigation.
... Republicans today also put forward a motion to subpoena around a dozen witnesses.
Those people, including officials involved in the FBI's Russia investigation as well as
people likely to be familiar with the compilation of the Steele dossier. ...
It's a damn shame they didn't make that motion a month ago when they were in the majority
on the committee.
There is a reason why Republicans did not do so when they controlled the house. Think
Uniparty! The Dems and Reps are two faces of the same party! The Uniparty did not want this
to happen! Now that the Reps are minority, they can act like Reps because majority Dems won't grant
their request! See how that works!!!!
This is how deep state protects it crime family members Rep and Dems! Think Uniparty! Then everything will suddenly start to make sense to you!
Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security Submit Joint Report on Impact of Foreign Interference on Election and
Political/Campaign Infrastructure in 2018 Elections
Although the specific conclusions within the joint report must remain classified, the Departments have concluded there is
no evidence to date that any identified activities of a foreign government or foreign agent had a material impact on the
integrity or security of election infrastructure or political/campaign infrastructure used in the 2018 midterm elections for
the United States Congress.
So no Russian interference in the 2018 election. What about any domestic interference? I don't see that mentioned...
MUH RUSSIA has been a never-ending chain of diminishing returns for two and three quarter years
Democrat politicians are lying to the people who care about MUH RUSSIA. These politicians don't care about it. They
never did. From the start it was nothing more than a way to keep a certain powerful faction of their party in line by
dangling MUH RUSSIA keys in front of them. Jingle-jangle, jingle-jangle...
They can't stop because the mindless rage monsters they whipped up (aka the shrieking base of the ever-growing left
wing of the Party that lives on Cuntbook and Twatter) will turn on them if they do with a tantrum of historic
Your average black Democrat voter don't care about this MUH RUSSIA ********
Your average hispanic Democrat voter don't care about this MUH RUSSIA ********
Your average white Democrat voter don't care about this MUH RUSSIA ********
Only the hyperpoliticized REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE machines whose entire lives are wrapped up in DUH STRUGGLE care about
this MUH RUSSIA ********
I can only refer to history
In the Roman Empire enemies of the state were blacklisted and they simply vanished.
There was no crime until the investigations started...
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone may be the most
peculiar document to emerge from the Trump–Russia "collusion" saga. It is an instant
classic in the Mueller genre: lots of heavy breathing, then sputtering anti-climax.
After a 20-page narrative about Russian cyber-ops, WikiLeaks' role as a witting
anti-American accomplice, and Trump supporters enthralled by thousands of hacked Democratic
emails and visions of the Clinton campaign's implosion, Stone, a comically inept hanger-on,
ends up charged with seven process crimes. No espionage, no conspiracy, no commission of any
crime until the investigations started.
This is not to say that obstruction of congressional investigations is trifling. Nor is it
to say the accused has a good chance of beating the case. Some of Stone's alleged lies were
mind-bogglingly stupid. Why deny written communications with people you've texted a zillion
times? Why deny conversations with interlocutors (such as Trump-campaign CEO Steve Bannon) who
have no reason to risk a perjury charge to protect you? And don't even get me started on the
witness-tampering count, which, if I were Mueller, I'd have hesitated to include for fear of
suggesting an insanity defense. ( Do it for Nixon? Pull a "Frank Pentangeli"? )
That said, the case is overcharged. The tampering count carries a 20-year penalty. Adding an
obstruction or false-statements count (five years each) would have given Stone (who is 66 years
old) prison exposure of up to 25 years. The most central "colluder" in the Mueller firmament to
be bagged so far, George Papadopoulos, was sentenced to a grand total of two weeks'
imprisonment. Surely a quarter-century of "potential" incarceration would have sufficed to give
prosecutors the "this is serious stuff" headline they crave while allowing for the more
representative sentence Stone will eventually receive -- who knows, maybe three weeks? But true
to form, Mueller instead included six of these five-year counts -- so the press can report that
Stone faces up to 50 years in the slammer.
This inflated portrait of Stone as a major criminal was further bloated by the scene of his
arrest : a well-armed battalion of FBI agents sent to apprehend him as the media, conveniently
on hand at 6 a.m., took it all in. But Stone is just a cameo. The big picture is the
overarching Trump–Russia investigation. It's still being inflated, too.
Prosecutors ordinarily do not write an elaborate narrative about crimes they cannot prove.
Here, though, Mueller uses Stone as the pretext to spell out the Big Collusion Scheme:
Candidate Donald Trump instructs Stone to coordinate with WikiLeaks on the dissemination of
Clinton dirt stolen by Russia; Stone directs his associate, Jerome Corsi, to have Corsi's man
in London, Ted Malloch, make contact with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, who is holed up at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Malloch must have succeeded, because next thing you know,
Corsi is reporting back to Stone: Our friends the Russian hackers have given WikiLeaks all this
damaging information on Hillary, including the Podesta emails; it will all be rolled out in
October, right before the election.
It's a sensational story. Only . . . it's just a story.
Mueller doesn't even pretend he can prove it. No shame in that: During a long investigation,
prosecutors always develop a theory of the case. Often, the hypothesis doesn't pan out. No
problem. You narrow your indictment down to what you can prove and call it a day. In Stone's
case, that would dictate omitting the ambitious collusion narrative and stripping down to a
two-page obstruction-of-Congress indictment. Instead, Mueller gives us the fever dream: Stone
as a key cog in the collusion wheel. Where reality intrudes, the prosecutors float suggestions
they cannot prove or leave out key details that blow up the narrative.
The special counsel could have contented himself with easy-to-prove false-statements charges
against Stone: lying about whether his WikiLeaks communications were documented in writing;
lying about whether he asked his friend Randy Credico to pass a request for specific Hillary
Clinton information to Assange; lying about whether he ever told the Trump campaign about his
WikiLeaks conversations with Credico.
But no, Mueller strains to accuse Stone of falsely denying that he had a second WikiLeaks
"intermediary" -- whom the indictment indicates was Jerome Corsi , Stone's Infowars associate.
Depending on how charitable you want to be, this claim is either risibly weak, flatly wrong, or
dependent on a distortion of the word "intermediary." To repeat, the "intermediary" thread adds
nothing to the case against Stone. It is a pretext for weaving the collusion narrative without
having to prove it.
To amplify the indictment a bit with reporting by the Daily
Caller 's Chuck Ross , Credico -- a left-wing comedian and radio host -- got access to
Assange through a radical lawyer, Margaret Ratner Kunstler , who has
done work for WikiLeaks. That apparently did not happen until shortly before August 25, 2016,
when Assange appeared as a guest on Credico's radio show. According to the indictment, Credico
first texted Stone about Assange's imminent appearance on August 19.
Prosecutors, however, suggest that Stone had a line into Assange and WikiLeaks starting at
least two months earlier. "By in or around June and July 2016," goes the slippery allegation,
Stone was telling Trump officials he had information that WikiLeaks possessed damaging Hillary
Clinton documents. In Mueller's telling, this makes Stone seem like a potentially valuable
WikiLeaks insider when, on July 22, WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of DNC emails.
Immediately, a "senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any
additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton
If not from Credico, from whom, pray tell, did Stone learn what WikiLeaks was up to? Who is
the other intermediary?
In truth, he didn't need one. He had two sources of information about WikiLeaks -- neither
of them Corsi, neither of them sensibly thought of as an "intermediary." These sources go
unmentioned in the indictment. Worse, while the prosecutors finger Corsi as Stone's hidden
"intermediary," their evidence does not support this claim -- and they know it, so they fudge
Let's start with the two sources Mueller omits.
Turns out it is not just Stone who was alerted long before the Democratic convention that
WikiLeaks might have damaging information on Clinton. Everyone on the planet who cared to be
informed about such things knew. On June 12, 2016, in an
interview that was widely
reported , Assange said that WikiLeaks planned to expose documents relating to Hillary
Clinton that could affect the 2016 election. Was Stone, the self-styled dark-politics devotee,
pressing sources for an entrée into WikiLeaks? Sure he was. But that doesn't mean he had
one. And he didn't need one in order to direct the Trump campaign's attention to WikiLeaks;
Assange was calling the world's attention to himself.
The second omitted source? It was James Rosen, then a top reporter at Fox News -- though
Rosen seems to have had no idea he was playing that role. To understand what happened, we need
to consider the July 25 Stone–Corsi email that the indictment treats like a smoking gun
-- but consider it in the context of an earlier July 25 email that the indictment fails to
As noted above, on July 22, someone very high up in the Trump campaign -- perhaps the
candidate himself, though we are not told -- ordered a top campaign official to reach out to
Stone. Just three days later, Stone sent Corsi an email with the subject line "Get to
[Assange]." Stone exhorted Corsi to try to reach the WikiLeaks leader "at Ecuadorian Embassy in
London and get the pending emails . . . they deal with the [Clinton] Foundation allegedly "
So why did Stone believe WikiLeaks had Clinton Foundation documents? Well, Stone is
acquainted with Charles Ortel , an
investor who dabbles in investigative journalism and has focused intently on the Clinton
Foundation. Ortel has occasional correspondence with James Rosen. In an email exchange on July
25, Rosen told Ortel, "Am told WikiLeaks will be doing a massive dump of HRC emails related to
the CF [i.e., the Clinton Foundation] in September." Ortel proceeded to forward this email to
Stone. Only after seeing Rosen's email did Stone contact Corsi to say that Assange "allegedly"
had Clinton Foundation emails that Corsi should try to acquire.
Obviously, Stone did not need a WikiLeaks intermediary to give him a heads-up about a
possible Clinton Foundation dump. He happened upon that information indirectly from a member of
the press (Rosen), through an acquaintance (Ortel). And he did not need Corsi as an
intermediary -- Stone is the one who alerted Corsi, not the other way around.
The indictment says that, shortly after receiving Stone's July 25 email imploring him to
make contact with Assange, Corsi forwarded it to a "supporter of the Trump campaign" in the
United Kingdom -- reported by Chuck Ross to be Ted Malloch, a London-based American who used to
be a business professor at
Oxford and has ties to British populists. Subsequently, on Sunday July 31, Stone emailed
Corsi to "call me MON," stressing that Corsi's associate should "see [Assange]."
Well, did that happen? Did Corsi's man Malloch make contact with WikiLeaks?
If you read nothing but Mueller's indictment, you assume he must have. After all, the next
thing we are told about is Corsi's email report to Stone on Tuesday, August 2. Corsi (then
vacationing in Italy) wrote: "Word is friend in embassy [i.e., Assange] plans 2 more dumps, one
shortly after I'm back [which was to be in mid August]. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very
damaging." Corsi added:
Time to let more than [Podesta] to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to
drop HRC [Clinton]. That appears to be game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start
suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke -- neither he nor she well. I expect that much of
next dump focus, setting stage for foundation debacle.
The implication is clear: Malloch must have reached Assange, gotten the critical
information, and passed it along to Corsi so it could be communicated to Stone and the Trump
campaign. Corsi is the intermediary! Coordination! Collusion!
But Mueller is hiding the ball again. The indictment makes no mention of the facts that
denies knowing anything about WikiLeaks , that Corsi denies having any sources with inside
knowledge about WikiLeaks, and that prosecutors appear to accept these denials.
So how did Corsi get the "2 more dumps" of information (or gossip) that he dished to Stone?
He made it up -- or, more benignly, he claims to have figured it out on his own. Reportedly , Mueller's prosecutors were as
frustrated as they were incredulous over Corsi's unlikely claim. But they don't have a better
explanation. In the negotiations over a plea offer (on a charge of lying to investigators),
which Corsi has resisted, Mueller's prosecutors drafted an agreed-upon "
Statement of the Offense ." In it, Corsi was to admit that "his representations to [Stone],
beginning in August 2016, that he had a way of obtaining confidential information from
[WikiLeaks] were false."
Corsi is another strange character in this drama. He is a notorious bomb-thrower, and his
memory is spotty. But one can understand why the special counsel seems to accept his story
about not having a WikiLeaks source: His information was spectacularly wrong. He surmised that
Assange would release information that Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill
Clinton, had serious medical problems; this would be a prelude to devastating disclosures about
the Clinton Foundation. Corsi's fever dream never came true, either.
But how can Corsi have been Stone's intermediary to WikiLeaks if he had no way of obtaining
confidential information from WikiLeaks?
Stone, meantime, points out that neither he nor Corsi made reference to Podesta's emails. He
denies any awareness that Assange had them, and plausibly contends that the reference to
Podesta in his conversation with Corsi (and in his later tweet on August 21 that "the Podesta's
[ sic ] in the barrel" was coming) related to a lobbying company started by John Podesta and
his brother Tony. That company had done work for the same Kremlin-backed Ukrainian political
party served by Paul Manafort -- Trump's campaign manager, and Stone's former business partner.
It was at the very time when Stone and Corsi were discussing WikiLeaks and Podesta that a July
York Times exposé appeared, outlining Manafort's lobbying entanglements with these
Ukrainians. Tellingly, Mueller does not contend that Stone's denial of foreknowledge about
WikiLeaks' Podesta dump is false.
Again, understand: It is not just that Mueller can't prove Corsi was Stone's intermediary.
Mueller has no need to try to prove it. He has an overwhelming obstruction and
witness-tampering case against Stone without it. The indictment's "intermediary" plot line is
just a device for prosecutors to spin the Trump–Russia–WikiLeaks collusion yarn.
They are careful not to plead it in a conspiracy count; just an "introductory" narrative -- no
formal charge, no burden to prove it, and no need to reveal stubborn facts that undermine it.
Since it is superfluous to the process charges against Stone, he may not even challenge it.
Maybe he will plead guilty, and the narrative will stand as the government's unrebutted version
And this is just the indictment of a bit player. Makes you look forward to the special
counsel's final report, no?
"... Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone else can see that they aren't. ..."
"... There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing that because the evidence proves his claims to be false. ..."
on Trump's unwillingness or inability to consider evidence that contradicts what he thinks he knows about foreign policy issues:
What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes,
are Trump's angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence
officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances
he has taken in public.
Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the
problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known
that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range
of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that
intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments
he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone
else can see that they aren't.
That invincible ignorance has serious consequences for U.S. policies and interests and for our relations with other states. One
of those consequences was the decision to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran because the president wrongly believed that they aren't
complying with the deal when all evidence shows that they have been complying from the beginning. Trump declared the deal to be "horrible,"
and so he refuses to consider the proof that shows his opposition to be baseless. At the same time, he imagines that there has been
great progress with North Korean disarmament because it flatters him to think that this is true.
There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims
without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting
all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing
that because the evidence proves his claims to be false.
This is not even a question of whether one happens to agree or disagree with the president's policies. The president simply makes
things up or repeats the lies that others have told him, and he then uses this garbage information to defend policies that make no
sense. That makes it practically impossible for the president to learn or change course when a policy is failing, because he is apparently
unable or unwilling to accept new information that doesn't bolster his preconceived notions of how clever and effective his decisions
have been. An unwillingness to listen to dissenting views and a refusal to consider contradictory evidence are among the greatest
flaws of our worst presidents, and they presage many more terrible decisions in the next two years.
Huge external debt plus high unemployment represents two vital preconditions of rise far right nationalism and fascism in all
its multiple incarnations. In this sence Ulrain, Argentina and Brasil are different links of the common chain of
In a way fascism is a way of reaction of nation deeply in crisis. In essence this is introduction of war time
restrictions on political speech and freedoms of the population. The Catch 22 is that often this is done not so much to
fight external threat, but top preserve the power of existing financial oligarchy. Which fascist after coming to power quickly
include in government and and desire of which are disproportionally obeyed by fascist state.
What in new in XXI century is the huge growth of power on intelligence agencies which is way represent crippling fascism or
neofascism. In a way, then intelligence agencies became political kingmakers (as was the case with the assassination of JFK,
impeachment of Nixon, elections of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, as well as establishing Mueller commission after Trump
victory), we can speak about sliding the county of the county toward fascism.
"... In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that followed. ..."
"... The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015 ..."
"... Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it forward. ..."
"... The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise. Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power. ..."
"... Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a program called Operation Paperclip . Many were dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist. ..."
"... A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason. Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism. ..."
"... The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism ..."
Missing from explanations of the rise of Mr. Bolsonaro is that for the last decade Brazil
has experienced the worst economic
recession in the country's history (graph below). Fourteen million formerly employed,
working age Brazilians are now unemployed. As was true in the U.S. and peripheral Europe from
2008 forward, the liberal response has been austerity as the Brazilian ruling class was made
richer and more politically powerful.
Since 2014, Brazil's public debt/GDP ratio has climbed from 20% to 75%
proclaims a worried IMF. That some fair portion of that climb came from falling GDP due to
economic austerity mandated by the IMF and Wall Street is left unmentioned. A decade of
austerity got liberal President Dilma Rousseff removed from office in 2016 in what can only be
called a Wall Street putsch. Perhaps Bolsonaro will tell Wall Street where to stick its loans
Back in the U.S., everyone knows that the liberalization of finance and trade in the 1990s
was the result of political calculations. That this liberalization was/is bipartisan suggests
that maybe the political calculations served certain economic interests. Never mind that these
interests were given what they asked for and crashed the economy with it. If economic problems
result from political calculations, the solution is political -- elect better leaders. If they
are driven by economic interests, the solution is to change the way that economic relationships
Between 1928 and 1932 German industrial production fell by 58%. By 1933, six million
formerly employed German workers were begging in the streets and digging through garbage
looking for items to sell. The liberal (Socialist Party) response was half-measures and
austerity. Within the liberal frame, the Depression was a political problem to be addressed in
the realm of the political. Centrist accommodation defined the existing realm. Adolf Hitler was
appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression.
In Brazil in the early-mid 2000s, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula,
implemented a Left program that pulled twenty million Brazilians out of poverty. The Brazilian
economy briefly recovered after Wall Street crashed it in 2008 before Brazilian public debt was
used to force the implementation of austerity. Dilma Rousseff capitulated and Brazil re-entered
recession. Rousseff was removed from power in 2016. Hemmed in by Wall Street and
IMF mandated austerity , any liberal government that might be elected would meet the same
fate as Rousseff.
In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that
preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations
and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to
the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial
economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that
Since 2008, the fiscal structure of the EU (European Union) combined with wildly unbalanced
trade relationships led to a decade of austerity, recession and depression for the European
periphery. In the U.S., by 2009 Wall Street was pushing austerity and cuts to Social Security
and Medicare as necessary to fiscal stability. The consequences of four decades of
financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external
class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely
With the presumed shared goal of ending the threat of fascism:
The ideological premises behind the logic that claims fascists as the explanation of fascism
emerge from liberalism. The term here is meant as description. Liberalism proceeds from
specific ontological assumptions. Within this temporal frame, a bit of social logic: If
fascists already existed, why didn't fascism? The question of whether to fight fascists or
fascism depends on the answer. The essentialist view is that characteristics intrinsic to
fascists make them fascists. This is the basis of scientific racism. And it underlies fascist
The theory of a strongman who exploits people who have a predisposition towards fascism is
essentialist as well if receptivity is intrinsic, e.g. due to psychology, genetics, etc.
Liberal-Left commentary in recent years has tended toward the essentialist view -- that
fascists are born or otherwise predisposed toward fascism. Unconsidered is that non-fascists
are equally determined in this frame. If 'deplorables' were born that way, four decades of
neoliberalism is absolved.
The problem of analogy, the question of what fascism is and how European fascism of the
twentieth century bears relation to the present, can't be answered in the liberal frame. The
rise and fall of a global radical right have been episodic. It has tied in history to the
development of global capitalism in a center-and-periphery model of asymmetrical economic
power. Finance from the center facilitates economic expansion until financial crisis interrupts
the process. Peripheral governments are left to manage debt repayment with collapsed
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would suggest
the opposite. In 2015, self-identified Marxists in Greece's SYRIZA party capitulated to the
austerity and privatization demands from EU creditors led by Germany. Even Lenin negotiated
with Wall Street creditors (on behalf of Russia) in the months after the October Revolution. In
a political frame, the solution from below is to elect leaders and parties who will act on
The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate
their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in
payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist
expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't
serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to
repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable
loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015.
Fascist racialization has analog in existing capitalist class relations. Immigration status,
race and gender define a social taxonomy of economic exploitation. Race was invented decades into the
Anglo-American manifestation of slavery to naturalize exploitation of Blacks. Gender difference
represents the evolution of unpaid to paid labor for women in the capitalist West. Claiming
these as causing exploitation gets the temporal sequence wrong. These were / are exploitable
classes before explanations of their special status were created.
This isn't to suggest that capitalist class relations form a complete explanation of fascist
racialization. But the ontological premise that 'freezes,' and thereby reifies racialization,
is fundamental to capitalism. This relates to the point argued below that the educated German
bourgeois, in the form of the Nazi scientists and engineers brought to the U.S. following WWII,
found Nazi racialization plausible through what has long been put forward as an antithetical
mode of understanding. Put differently, it wasn't just the rabble that found grotesque racial
caricatures plausible. The question is why?
Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson
administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and
in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and
images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it
The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had
no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise.
Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by
the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power.
Since WWI, commercial propaganda has become ubiquitous in the U.S. Advertising firms hire
psychologists to craft advertising campaigns with no regard for the concern that psychological
coercion removes free choice from capitalism. The distinction between political and commercial
propaganda is based on intent, not method. Its use by Woodrow Wilson (above) is instructive: a
large and vocal anti-war movement had legitimate reasons for opposing the U.S. entry into WWI.
The goal of Bernays and Wilson was to stifle political opposition.
Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their
families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a
program called Operation Paperclip . Many were
dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In
contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi
scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent
contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist.
The problem isn't just that many committed Nazis were scientists. Science and technology
created the Nazi war machine. Science and technology were fully integrated into the creation
and running of the Nazi concentration camps. American race 'science,' eugenics, formed the
basis of Nazi race theory. Science and technology formed the functional core of Nazism. And the
Nazi scientists and engineers of Operation Paperclip were major contributors to American
post-war military dominance.
A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious
past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of
liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason.
Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois
basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project
within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism.
This is no doubt disconcerting to theorists of great difference. If Bolsonaro can impose
austerity while maintaining an unjust peace, Wall Street and the IMF will smile and ask for
more. American business interests are already
circling Brazil, knowing that captive consumers combined with enforceable property rights
and a pliable workforce means profits. Where were liberals when the Wall Street that Barack
Obama saved was squeezing the people of Brazil, Spain, Greece and Portugal to repay debts
incurred by the oligarchs? Liberalism is the link between capitalism and fascism, not its
Having long ago abandoned Marx, the American Left is lost in the temporal logic of
liberalism. The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on
Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing. Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
Remember when Dan Rather self-immolated his credibility in a desperate attempt to take out George W. Bush? The Killian documents
controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate) involved six purported documents critical of U.S. President George W. Bush's
service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73.
Four of these documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than
two months before the 2004 presidential election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.
Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents were forgeries.
Well, looks like Buzzfeed did not learn from history. Buzzfeed set the media world on fire on Friday with a story that appeared
well sourced that claimed Donald Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a Moscow real estate deal
that never came to fruition. The mainstream media went into hyper impeachment drive.
This was the nail in the Trump coffin as far as they were concerned. Trump was as good as dead.
Then a funny thing happened. Robert Mueller's press guy issued an unprecedented statement calling the Buzzfeed story pure,
unadulterated bullshit. Whoops!!
The Trump is dead meme quickly evaporated. Why did Mueller do this? The answer is simple. Bill Barr.
The soon to be new Attorney General is known as a man of impeccable integrity with a minimal tolerance for bullshit. Mueller,
as an old friend of Barr, knew that he had to do something dramatic to distance himself and his staff from this toxic story.
Once Barr is installed in office, stand by. The Department of Justice and the FBI will received the equivalent of a high powered
enema. Both are sick institutions and need to have the feces flushed out.
"...Bill Barr. The soon to be new Attorney General is known as a man of impeccable integrity with a minimal tolerance for bullshit."
Mr. Barr seems as swampy as they get. He played a key role in the mass surveillance of all Americans and is the classic beltway
sophist who has done much to reinterpret the constitution eviscerating the Bill of Rights. His past actions don't make him a man
of integrity unless of course being in service to the national security state is considered virtuous.
I believe Mr. Johnson's optimism of Barr's nomination leading to a "high powered enema" at the DOJ & FBI is unfounded. IMO,
none of the seditionists will be held to account. In any case POTUS Trump seems quite content with tweeting witch hunt rather
than declassifying and ordering a prosecutor convene a grand jury and have Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and all the other putschists
"He played a key role in the mass surveillance of all Americans"
He served under H.W. Bush who lost to Clinton. Obama did just what, beside get great protection from Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and a list of others you haven't named yet. How many of of the FBI and DOJ's top leadership from the Obama administration
have gotten fired and are being investigated for criminal conduct? What kind of support do you think the Trump administration
was getting from those outstanding civil servants for the past two years?
"What kind of support do you think the Trump administration was getting from those outstanding civil servants for the past
Well, it is the Trump administration that nominated Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray and now Barr. How many of those fired have
testified to a grand jury? They're nicely ensconced with their lucrative sinecures until the next Borg administration. Mueller
has spent tens of millions in going after Trump campaign minions. Where is the witch hunt against Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Lynch,
et al? Of course its not that POTUS has no agency here. He can order declassification and the appointment of a prosecutor with
a stroke of pen. Tweeting however is more like his pace.
Rather interviewed me in the library of the Army and Navy Club in DC at the height of the excitement over the obviously approaching
US invasion of Iraq in 2002. At one point he asked me if the Bushies were going to invade Iraq. I told himthat should not even
be a question. He did not believe me.
The only difference is that Rather had some small degree of credibility before the incident in question. I don't believe that
Buzzfeed has ever had a shred of credibility to anyone with the slightest ability to think.
Was it conspiracy or idiocy that led to the failure of U.S. intelligence agencies to detect
and prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon headquarters?
That's one of the questions at the heart of "The Watchdogs Didn't Bark: The CIA, NSA, and the
Crimes of the War on Terror," by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski. In their careful and thorough
investigation of the events leading up to the attacks, the authors uncover a story about the
Central Intelligence Agency's neglect, possible criminal activities and a cover-up that may
have allowed al-Qaida to carry out its plans uninhibited by government officials.
In the latest installment of "Scheer Intelligence," the journalists tell Truthdig Editor in
Chief Robert Scheer how an interview with Richard Clarke, the counterterror adviser to
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, led them to a jaw-dropping revelation regarding two
hijackers involved in the infamous attacks. As it turns out, Khalid Muhammad Abdallah
al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two men linked to al-Qaida, were staying at an FBI informant's
home in San Diego in 2000, and they were being tracked by the National Security Agency. Despite
knowledge of the men's ties to the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, neither was
investigated by the FBI. Clarke and others believe that this may have had to do with a CIA
attempt to turn the two men into agency informants.
"When we sat down with Clarke he told us he couldn't see any other explanation but that
there was an op [and] that it never made it to the White House because it would have had to
go through him," says Nowosielski.
"And his friend [then CIA Director] George Tenet was responsible for malfeasance and
misfeasance in the runup to 9/11."
Once the plans for the 9/11 attack must have become clear to the CIA, why didn't the agency
prevent it from taking place? Duffy and Nowosielski come to the simple, shocking conclusion
that because the CIA is prohibited from operating on U.S. soil, those involved in the operation
chose to avoid prosecution rather than come clean.
In a well-documented case study that touches senior government officials, including current
special counsel Robert Mueller and other high-level individuals, crucial questions arise about
who is responsible for allowing "a plot that resulted in 3,000 murders" and led to ongoing U.S.
military entanglements in the Middle East to move forward.
However, our country's recent crimes and the people behind them, including President Bush,
are currently being "whitewashed" by our national obsession with Donald Trump, the authors
"All the crimes of the war on terror, the torture, Abu Ghraib, it's all just gone -- the
unnecessary invasion of the war in Iraq, it's all just sort of under the rug now because of
Trump," Duffy says.
Listen to their discussion to learn more about the stunning investigation into the tragedy
that changed the course of our nation's history and the Americans who could have thwarted the
attacks but decided to cover their own backs instead. You can also read a transcript of the
interview below the media player .
RS : Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of "Scheer Intelligence," where the
intelligence comes from my guests. And the title is really appropriate for the book we're going
to talk about today, "The Watchdogs Didn't Bark: The CIA, NSA, and the Crimes of the War on
Terror." And the authors are John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski. And they are investigative
reporters, and the watchdogs here are the people in our intelligence agencies that are supposed
to be protecting the nation. And this book cuts very deeply into the unsolved mystery of how
9/11 happened. Why weren't we better prepared to prevent it? It's one of the most important
events in American history; it certainly has shaped our lives in terms of a surveillance state,
our rights and everything else, up to the present. And this book, I think, represents the most
exhaustive and well-documented effort to get to the bottom of the whole thing. You're very
careful in what you do and do not assert about 9/11, what we don't know about it, and
particularly the role of George Tenet, who was then head of the CIA, and the role of the CIA in
-- what is the right word? -- obscuring the story, even keeping information from the White
House, from the FBI. So give me the gist of the book.
RN : This is Ray. The book is largely about looking at this case study of the failure
leading up to 9/11, the people who were involved in that failure, how that came about, and how
they were successful, to the present day, in managing to obscure the public from really fully
understanding that this was, in the words of one of our sources, really just a handful of
people. And the most jarring thing is that they're still, in some cases, working today in I
guess Trump's CIA. And we sort of document through the second half of the book what damage was
done to America because they remained in their positions.
JD: This is John. And intelligence was gathered around the time of the millennium that led
people in the Bin Laden unit at the CIA to monitor a meeting in Malaysia that was a gathering
of these al-Qaida figures. In monitoring this --
RS : That was in the year 2000, right?
JD : Yes. Right at the outset of the year. In monitoring this meeting, they became aware of
the fact that one of the attendees had a multiple-entry visa to the United States. That man's
name was Khalid al-Mihdhar. He would eventually be on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon;
he was one of the hijackers. So this starts the whole thing there, the fact that the CIA
becomes aware of this information; the Bin Laden unit, counterterror center, and then all the
way up to George Tenet are aware of this information. There's a lot of ins, outs, and
what-have-yous about where that information goes, but it ultimately does not go over to the
FBI's counterterror division in New York, much to the protest of the FBI agents who were
detailed to the CIA's Bin Laden unit. And it did not make it to the White House counterterror
czar, Richard Clarke, who very much finds this to be, like, the crux of the whole story -- the
fact that this information was kept from his office for basically a year and eight months, up
until the success of the attacks. The crux is there, that they had this information, these guys
were coming into the country, they had just left the terror planning summit, and this
information was being held close by the Bin Laden unit, by the counterterror center, and by
George Tenet. The reason for that is unknown; the speculation that Richard Clarke has was that
George Tenet and these people in the Bin Laden unit and counterterror center thought having
these al-Qaida people in the United States, they could possibly go through Allied proxies in
the Saudi intelligence to try to get close to these guys, monitor them, potentially find out
information from them or even try to flip them. That's Richard Clarke's speculation as to why
this was kept from him for so long. Ultimately, the attack was successful; that they all just
did their best to bury all this and, you know, hope no one noticed.
RS : Let me just start off with something that was confusing to me in reading your book.
Because the FBI generally comes off looking pretty good in your book, and the real problem is
with the CIA, and to a lesser degree, with the NSA. And in the San Diego story, and this is
covered in the 9/11 Commission Report and others, the two San Diego guys -- they are staying at
the home of an FBI informant at first. So when you say the FBI was not informed, weren't some
of these calls actually made from the home of an FBI asset?
RN : It's interesting when you know, A, that according to our NSA sources they were able to
be pinged every time that Mihdhar and Hazmi, the two hijackers, called from that house that you
mentioned in San Diego, back to Yemen. That somebody in the NSA was getting an alert as that
was happening each time, and was aware of those connections. But that the house that was being
used for the phone call was that of an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh. And Abdussattar was
somebody the FBI recruited who was inside a popular mosque in San Diego, and who they thought
might be able to feed them warnings of anybody who might be a radical Muslim terrorist. And
Abdussattar claims that he simply missed the warning signs of the two tenants that he had in
his home. I mean, it's kind of interesting. He's also, he's not just an FBI informant, he's
also a Saudi, which kind of points to Richard Clarke's conjecture, which he first laid out to
us when we sat down in his office in 2009. And that was that once the CIA monitored the meeting
in Malaysia, knew that these two guys were connected to Bin Laden and were of interest, and saw
that they were heading to the United States, in Clarke's words, they might well have thought
that the best way to try to recruit these guys to feed information was not to send a blue-eyed,
blonde-haired, American CIA agent to go to meet them. But, instead, to use our partners in
Saudi Arabia and Saudi intelligence -- which George Tenet, the head of the CIA, happened to be
very close with -- to try to recruit them. So I actually focus more on the fact that this guy
was introduced to this house by a gentleman who's been determined to be a Saudi agent, a guy
named Omar al-Bayoumi, and that this guy then was perhaps working dually for Saudi intel and as
an FBI asset. And everyone sort of focuses on, oh, Abdussattar Shaikh was an FBI asset, so that
seems to put blame at the feet of the FBI. Could be; could be, but I would also focus on that
Saudi angle, because it recurs so often.
RS : Well, it also goes to the question of the efficiency of the surveillance society.
Because after all, these phone calls could be intercepted. You know, they did; they could
follow this trail. And phone calls are being made back to a suspect residence in Yemen and so
forth, from the home of an FBI recruit. And I'm just wondering, there's been a lot of
discussion, some of the people that you quote in your book have made this point -- you collect
this haystack of information that doesn't lead you to the needle in the haystack. And so here
these phone calls were, clearly could be intercepted. They didn't require any special act of
Congress or anything else. This was not a case of their arms being tied, the intelligence
agencies. But they're not even looking at their own data. Isn't that the takeaway from the
first part of this story? These guys are acting suspiciously in San Diego, they have a
suspicious background, they've participated in a suspicious conference, they're staying at the
home of an FBI informant, and they're making calls that would basically outline what was going
to happen in this disastrous attack -- and no one noticed. Or the ones who noticed didn't tell
JD : I think what is likely to have happened there is, so those calls were going back, and I
think it was about seven or eight calls. And Khalid al-Mihdhar's wife still lived at that
house, and he was calling her from San Diego. So I don't think any deep operational details
were being discussed in those calls, but that doesn't really matter; the fact that they're
calling that home from America is a big deal. And how that would work at the NSA is there's
someone who is tasked all day with basically monitoring the electronic signals going into and
out of this house in Yemen, and when they see this coming in from the United States, that
should ring a really big alarm bell. Now, that person working that desk would have to seek
approval from the chop chain, which are these NSA managers. In order for anything to happen
with that information, it has to get passed up and then brought to a FISA court, brought to the
FBI. And if these managers within the NSA basically say, don't worry about it, sit on it, just
collect it, sit on it -- and if they don't allow any action, then there will be no action. And
it's just going to stay housed right there, in that particular data stovepipe at the NSA. If
Richard Clarke's speculation is true, that there was this attempt to recruit these guys in the
U.S. with Saudi proxies, part of that plan would have been George Tenet speaking to someone at
the NSA, or one of George Tenet's people speaking to someone at the NSA. Basically saying, hey,
before you go out getting any FISA warrants or chasing anything down regarding this specific
house, come to us first. So if there is some operation going on, it would stand to reason that
part of that operation would be not allowing these pings at this particular desk to turn into
RS : For people listening, let me make clear, this is an incredibly detailed, researched
book, which relies very heavily on intelligence veterans. No one less so than Richard Clarke,
who's come up so far; another is former colonel Larry Wilkerson, obviously a key person. And
what is very dramatic in your book is, where your story really comes to life for you guys as
journalists, is when Richard Clarke -- you say you go in there to interview him, and you tell
your crew, put the sound on as we go in. And you go in, and you think you're going to have to
ask a lot of questions to get -- and for people who don't know, Richard Clarke ever since the
early '70s was a major figure in the intelligence community. And at this point, when you're
talking to him, he's been around the block, he's seen everything. And he was a close friend of
George Tenet, who was head of the CIA; they considered themselves allies. And you're going in
to get this interview, and you think you're going to have to weasel information out of him. And
he just hits you over the head with an assertion that, really, is the thrust of this book. So
why don't you take us to that moment?
RN : What we discovered on the day that we walked into Richard Clarke's conference room was
that he'd been ready for probably about a year to talk about this, and no major journalists had
called him up to ask him about this subject. Nobody had ever asked him. So going back, you
know, he started in the Reagan State Department; he worked under George H.W.; Clinton, when
these Al Qaeda terrorist attacks began in the early nineties, recognized that there needed to
be a new position within his Cabinet, and he called it the counterterror czar, the
counterterror adviser. And he created that position for Richard Clarke. As you mentioned,
Clarke was close friends with George Tenet, who also was sort of on the National Security
Council under Clinton early on, and then got named the head of the CIA in the midst of
Clinton's first term. George W. Bush and company come in, early 2001; as it turned out, nine
months ahead of this ticking clock towards 9/11. And Richard Clarke is told that he's
essentially being demoted. He's still going to be the counterterror advisor, but it's not a
Cabinet-level position. And so now he's kind of essentially going through the extra layer of
Condoleezza Rice. But George Tenet still very much has Bush's ear. And that's kind of the back
story there; then after, you know, on 9/11 Richard Clarke by nearly all accounts was running
the response that morning, on that critical day; he was the top man for counterterror. Over
time, he starts to get rubbed the wrong way by the fact that the Bush administration
inexplicably is not really terribly still concerned about Al Qaeda after 9/11. But then Clarke
leaves, and he writes a bestselling book. And he testifies before the 9/11 commission and
becomes the only person to apologize to the families, to admit that there was a failure at all.
But cut to a few years down the line, and he releases another book in 2008 that doesn't become
a bestseller. And it's called "Your Government Failed You." And it includes a section on
Mihdhar and Hazmi that he calls "Straining Credulity," in which he says that he does not
believe in conspiracy theories, but in this one particular case, he's weighed it every which
way and he can't see another way to explain it but by. But he sort of saved us speculation, and
so we saw that part in his book and we thought, well, we've been itching -- we'd collected
enough info by that time, and talked with enough people, that we thought: something happened
here with these two hijackers that flew over to the U.S. Something happened when they arrived.
And the big question was, if this was an operation by the CIA, did they let Clinton know? Did
they then let Bush know when he came in? What was the deal there? And Richard Clarke would be
the man in a position to answer that. And so you're right, that's where our journey really --
that's where we launched. Because we'd been looking into it for a few years, but when we sat
down with Clarke, that was when he told us he couldn't see any other explanation but that there
was an op, that it never made it to the White House because it would have had to go through
him. And his friend George Tenet was responsible for malfeasance and misfeasance in the runup
JD : And he also, in part of that description, said that a lot of the CIA reports that would
have, any other day, come directly to his computer -- when he flicked it on in the morning, it
would be right there waiting for him -- just on this specific case with these two individuals,
he was removed from the chain of information. And so he felt that he was getting minutiae
concerning terrorism from around the world in, like, tiny micro-detail on everything except
this, and that must have meant he was intentionally pulled out of the chain by someone. And
that that would have taken high-level order. And when asked, you know, how high level, he said
that it must have come from the director, referring to George Tenet.
RS : So let's cut to the chase here. There's an old caution, don't attribute to conspiracy
what can be explained by ordinary stupidity. Or laziness, or incompetence. Is this a case where
George Tenet, the admired at that time head of the CIA, was just incompetent, stupid,
indifferent? Is there something more at work? Did the CIA welcome such an attack as a boon for
the military-industrial complex, as some people allege? What's going on here? How could this
major tragedy event be visited upon the United States, the head of our intelligence agency
knows that there are these suspect characters there, and he doesn't bother to tip off the FBI,
let alone the White House? And after all, the FBI is in charge of domestic surveillance;
they're the ones that have to go arrest these guys, you know, at least confront them, see what
they're doing. I have to tell people listening to this, this is a very careful, indeed
conservative, in the best sense of the word, book. This is not a book you can just dismiss by
saying it's got some wild, interesting theory. No -- you err, I would say, on the side of
caution, in a way.
JD : We err on the side of caution all the time, and we're not going to try to say something
that we can't really, really defend. If we start from a position that there's some level of
merit to what Clarke is suggesting, that there is this operation going on to try to monitor
these hijackers domestically by the CIA, as opposed to handing it off to the FBI -- presuming
he's right on that, there is this --
RS : Can I just add a little note that Wilkerson actually goes further.
JD : Wilkerson later suggests that he heard it mentioned after the fact, in about 2003 or
2004, when he is at the CIA. The invasion of Iraq has begun, and they're waiting for updated
satellite information, everyone's kind of standing around just kind of BS'ing. And he basically
overhears a conversation about how, oh man, Tenet tried to flip these guys in the U.S. and then
had to hide it because it all went wrong, and it would have come back to bite him. And yeah,
Wilkerson basically claims to have overheard high-level people speaking about that, just sort
of in a B.S. session.
RN : Well, and not really, not overheard; it's more like, he claimed multiple, very
high-level under Tenet sources, that he was close with at that time, who were in these "yak-yak
sessions," that he calls them. And they each claimed to be aware of the reality of this,
JD : You're asking, like, how nefarious it is. In the first period of all this, presuming
that it's true, presuming that there's this operation going on to try to flip these guys or
follow them or whatever, gather information on them domestically, you can imagine that, OK,
they're going to have some sort of setup in which to monitor these guys, or they're using Saudi
proxies perhaps, or other proxies, and they're following them. Then we get to this point where,
well, the attack succeeds on September 11, so how the heck does that happen? If you have this,
if you're monitoring these guys and then they do this, where does the ball get dropped? And our
book does go into that a bit, and we definitely say, like, there's this moment where they must
have said: OK. This isn't working, it's not happening, there has got to be a point where they
say, abandon ship. But what do they do? How do they abandon ship? They need to somehow turn
this over to the FBI to wrap it up for them. And the way they seem to do this is not by being
honest and saying, hey, we were trying to do this and it didn't work, but here's the
information -- go get 'em. They definitely don't do that.
RS : The "trying to do this" -- you mean to turn these terrorists into agents for
JD : So what I'm saying is, if at some point when it's not working, when the flip hasn't
happened, when whatever goal they set for themselves, when they haven't achieved it, a time
must come for them to wrap up this operation. A time must -- you can't just let them go all the
way and succeed in their attack, you would think.
RN : But I think what you're asking is the intention of the operation, which would seem --
well, the CIA was created in order to prevent future Pearl Harbors. So I guess, giving them the
benefit of the doubt, the intention of the operation would theoretically have been to monitor
these guys so as to figure out what they're doing here in the U.S.
JD : Yes, yes. We're giving them the benefit of the doubt there. And then we look at the
emails and cable traffic we can find in that summer, and we watch as -- there's no search for
these guys, there's no FBI search for these guys until August 23rd of 2001. And that's the
point where, surreptitiously, someone stationed at Alec Station, the Bin Laden unit, CIA, who's
going through old cable traffic, goes: Oh my gosh! I found a cable that these guys came to the
United States. And she alerts the FBI, and the FBI begins their domestic search. I guess what
I'm suggesting is, a time would have come when they, when whoever is running this operation at
the CIA, whatever the architecture of that operation looks like, they would have seen these
things happening. They would have seen the connections they were making with these other guys
coming to the United States. And a time would have come for them to say: OK. We have to pass
this off to the FBI to shut it down. And it does --
RS : But wait a minute. When you say OK, and they've seen things -- they see people who are
identified as terrorists, part of this terrorist network, traces back to Al Qaeda. And they are
learning about airplanes and how to fly them, and flight paths, and everything. And you're
telling me that they say, well, you know, maybe we're not going to actually recruit them, maybe
we're -- we better do something. Why aren't they saying, holy cow, these guys can do great
damage to this country! We got to call, what, the local San Diego police, at least, to get them
to check them out! No?
RN : OK, so these guys arrive in early 2000. What happens in October 2000? The U.S.S. Cole
is attacked in Yemen. FBI agents working that from top levels of the New York office of the FBI
find a very direct connection not only to Al Qaeda, but to that same planning meeting that the
CIA monitored. The same one where Mihdhar and Hazmi were at that planning meeting. So not only
do you have an inclination -- oh, these guys are Al Qaeda, they're probably not here to, in the
words of one person, go to f'ing Disneyland. They're here for something nefarious -- but now,
after October 2000, for the entire year up to 9/11, the CIA has the knowledge that these two
individuals that were at this meeting, that the meeting spawned the U.S.S. Cole attack, which
killed 17 dead servicemen. So I think at that point, yeah, calling the local San Diego police
would probably make a lot of sense.
RS : OK, and what about the FBI informant who was their link in San Diego? Why isn't he
telling anyone, or why doesn't the FBI know?
JD : You have to be careful to separate what's going on at different agencies. An FBI
informant's not necessarily reporting to the CIA, and the CIA informant's not reporting to the
FBI. And then you also have to understand that the FBI has national headquarters and then a
bunch of different field offices throughout the country. And you have field office reports
coming in, like the Phoenix memo from Ken Williams mentioning that there's these, all these
Muslim guys trying to learn to fly. You've got what Coleen Rowley exposes out of Minnesota,
when they bust Zacarias Moussaoui, and how they're trying to get into his laptop, and they're
being hampered by FBI headquarters. So I mean, you don't know what came from Abdussattar. But I
don't want to move too far into the weeds and off the general thrust of your original question.
And I think what you come down to is a fork in the road. At some point, either the CIA running
this operation has to wrap it up, or this major attack is going to succeed. If you ask
yourself, well, why didn't they wrap it up -- because obviously they didn't, and the attack did
succeed–so if you ask yourself why didn't they, there's one potential answer, which is
that they were afraid of being prosecuted. Because they had been running an illegal operation
in the United States. So their own fear for their own lives, freedom, careers, all that
RS : For people who don't understand the law, you have to explain, the CIA was prevented
from running this kind of operation domestically. This is supposed to be up to the FBI.
JD : It is a crime for them to operate within the United States.
RN : And what Richard Clarke told us, we don't know how much of the information, like the
Phoenix memo and these other things that Duffy just mentioned, got to George Tenet. But what we
do know, the existence of Mihdhar and Hazmi in this country should have made it to him by that
point. Because his own CIA counterterror office had informed the FBI in August, and a search
had begun. So that information should have been in Tenet's head. We know that he was briefed
about Zacarias Moussaoui acting weird at a flight school in Minnesota. And he comes to the --
oh, man --
JD : September 4th principals meeting.
RN : -- September 4th principals meeting in the White House. Clarke has been pushing the
entire Bush administration, the entire eight, nine months, to be able to brief them on Al Qaeda
and make the case for why the administration should take this seriously. And he's finally got
that meeting, and George Tenet is sitting there, and he doesn't say a word. And he was later
asked by investigators why not, and he gave this really bizarre non-answer, which was just
like: it just wasn't the right time, right place, I just can't take you any further than that.
And they let him get away with leaving it at that, but Richard Clarke says the reason he
doesn't tell us at that point, he believes, is because Clarke would have had him brought up on
charges that day for malfeasance and misfeasance in withholding that information. Because
remember, that would also make his people culpable for the Cole, because they would have known
about the planning session for the Cole nine months before that one happened, too. So it looks
JD : And then they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice for all of the hiding of
these figures once the FBI investigation into the Cole happened. So they have a long list of
things they become guilty of should they just turn this over and say, like: Ah, hey guys,
there's these guys, you should probably go do something about it. Now, that's one explanation.
Other people have other explanations. But as I said, we don't make accusations that we cannot
really, firmly back up. So this time, that's pretty much the one we typically go with.
RS : Two people in your book who take it further are Richard Clarke and Larry Wilkerson. Two
of the most highly experienced, knowledgeable individuals to come out of our whole military
intelligence complex. And they, put it in human terms, they say they don't know how these
people sleep at night. Wilkerson, even more than Clarke, suggests that these people could have
prevented 9/11, and knew about it. Now, I just want to ask you about one other person. Again,
the book is devastating; it's called "The Watchdogs Didn't Bark: The CIA, NSA, and the Crimes
of the War on Terror," John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski. But let me push it one step further to
the contemporary moment. The book is kind of easy on the FBI. But the fact is the FBI was
really the agency that should have been following these terrorists when they're in the United
States. But one guy who comes up in current making of history, and who was head of the FBI at a
critical point, is Mueller, who's now running the Russian, interference in our election
investigation. What was his role? I'd like to conclude on that, because he's a major figure
right now, the head of this special investigation. What was his role in this?
RN : I mean, it is important to remember that the guy came in, I think it was maybe 10 days
before 9/11, and took over the FBI. So he was, among the CIA, NSA, and FBI, he was able to be
the only one at the leadership helm in the post-9/11 days and months who you couldn't really
lay any culpability at his door for any kind of failure. Remember, the CIA director George
Tenet, he's right at the table with the President; he's a Cabinet-level guy. The FBI director,
it's not the same way. The FBI director reports to the Attorney General in the Department of
Justice, and the Attorney General gets the direct seat. We make the case in the book that when
George Tenet, in the week after 9/11, made the big play, the big power grab for the CIA, what
we call the wish list of every CIA director accumulated over the whole history of the agency,
and essentially puts it out there to Bush and says, these are the powers we need now to make
sure this kind of thing doesn't happen -- he gets his green light. Mueller, on the other hand
-- well, a couple things happen. For one thing, the stories–the CIA is better at keeping
their skeletons hidden, for a while. So the first stories that come out that start to paint a
picture of blame regarding 9/11, they're all pointing towards the FBI. Coleen Rowley comes out,
and she points a finger at Mueller in May of 2002, and that sort of gets the ball rolling on
the "it was the FBI's fault" story, which really didn't get corrected for quite a number of
years. So our sources tell us Mueller was playing defense, he was willing to kind of go along
as the Bush administration pushed that–we kind of know what happened here, so we don't
need to investigate this much further; you should be putting your FBI resources towards
preventing future attacks. And I can certainly understand why a man like Robert Mueller in that
position would say, would not want to be the guy that missed the next one. So from what we can
tell, and from what our sources told us, it does seem that he sort of wrapped up the 9/11
investigation, or just ended it midway. But what was happening was, we talked with Pat DeMoro
-- he was one of our sources -- and he took us inside, he ran the 9/11 criminal investigation;
remember, this was a crime, right. At least 19 guys, probably a lot more, were involved in a
plot that resulted in 3,000 murders. So he was investigating that, and he was finding over
about a two-year period, there would be leads that would point towards Saudi facilitators to
the hijackers, Saudi helpers, Saudi royal money coming over. And every time he found these, he
had to report them up to Bob Mueller. Bob Mueller would theoretically report them to the
Attorney General, who would theoretically report them to Bush. And yet the end result of this
was that Bush invades Iraq, and the U.S. public never heard about these Saudi connections
until, officially, until just a couple of years ago, really.
JD : And you have said that our book comes off pretty light on the FBI, and I think the
crucial difference to make clear is that most of the people we're talking about within the FBI
are from particularly one field office. We're talking about John O'Neill's people out of New
York, who are counterterror investigators. That's most of the people we're dealing -- we're
not, we mention a few other people from FBI headquarters, but we don't necessarily mention them
in the best light. And one of the big failures of the FBI is the search to find al-Mihdhar and
al-Hazmi, once they are made aware that they're in the country a couple weeks before 9/11. And
that is a huge story there, and we could only write so much book. So we don't want to just sit
here and say, like, oh, the FBI is great and did everything right; we focus specifically on a
handful of people who did do their damnedest to unearth the conspirators behind the Cole
attack, and to pass information about the presence of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi over to FBI
investigators in New York in the runup to 9/11. So we don't want to necessarily sit here and
say the FBI was perfect and did everything right; we're talking about a handful of
RS : And as you've just indicated, your style and the character of this book is quite
scholarly. It's very thoughtful, it's incredibly well documented. And you got people really on
the inside, in the know, to trust you and to talk honestly about it. You've done the gumshoe
journalism, you took 10 years, you checked every record. What has been the critical
RN : Well, we should have put Trump's picture on the cover. [Laughs] I think that would have
RS : That's a pretty profound observation, in a way. Because there's a whole bunch of people
now who think all of our troubles in this country started and will end with Trump. And it
really whitewashes everybody else.
JD : It's whitewashing a lot of people. There's, all of a sudden people who a few years ago
we were like, this is the worst person on earth! -- like George W. Bush, is now just being
embraced by Democrats as some, like, affable guy. All the crimes of the war on terror, the
torture, Abu-Ghraib, it's all just gone -- the unnecessary invasion of the war in Iraq, it's
all just sort of under the rug now because of Trump.
RS : Yeah, those were the adults watching the store. Everybody is angry that Trump doesn't
have adults watching the store, and now he just got in trouble with his Secretary of Defense,
pushing him out, and now that guy is whitewashed, right? He was considered a mad dog at one
point. So you're right; your book has run into a head storm of indifference to anything that
happened before Trump. But I'm asking a very pointed question. What happens? You guys spent
over 10 years on this, right?
RN : Yeah. And you know, our goal was not to get famous. [Laughs] We really did want
accountability for this small group of people that we thought, these people cannot stay in the
CIA, right? We're not going to keep letting them run the War on Terror, are we? And maybe if
people just know about this, or if we can just prove it–if we talk with enough insiders,
if we get enough documents together, if we write a book. It turns out, no. There's going to be
no accountability, and they're going to, the few that remain now at high levels of the CIA are
going to continue to do what they do, and no one's going to know about it except for folks that
listen to your show, so thank you.
RS : Well, they're going to write the history. I mean, the amazing thing–you think of
a movie like "Zero Dark Thirty," you know; and you quote John Kiriakou in your book, and he was
in the CIA; he was actually very successful in being involved with the capture of the highest
person connected with al-Qaida, and so forth. And they spun a myth that the torture worked, and
you needed torture, and blah blah blah. And it basically went unchallenged. So these people who
either lied, or just lied by not talking, even to the FBI or the White House -- they get to
control the narrative. And then a book like yours comes out, and -- I'm asking a very serious
question. What has been the response of The New York Times, The Washington Post?
JD : [Laughing] We're still waiting to hear what The Washington Post and The New York Times
think. We've gotten a lot of praise from people who have read it, but we're not getting any
really major national or international reviews. Well, one thing we like to do, you mentioned
"Zero Dark Thirty." And the main character, played by Jessica Chastain, is sort of an
amalgamation of a handful of people who did work at the CIA, most prominently a woman by the
name of Alfreda Bikowsky, who is mentioned very prominently in our book. We want people to know
her name, Alfreda Bikowsky, because it's a name that was sort of an open secret in the media
in, you know, New York, Washington, for many, many years. Her involvement goes from the
pre-9/11 period there at Alec Station through torture and drone killings, and we want to make
sure that her name gets out there so she can't hide in the shadows.
RN : Her name was never mentioned in any media until it came out on our website. It was 11
years, 10 months from the first alleged crime she'd committed that we documented, until her
name came out on our website.
JD : We just like to throw her name out there every once in a while, and make sure more and
more people hear it.
RS : Ah, that should be enough to inspire people to get a copy of "The Watchdogs Didn't
Bark: The CIA, NSA, and the Crimes of the War on Terror." It's written by John Duffy and Ray
Nowosielski. It's a very, very important book. This is the yeoman journalistic work on the
story, and it's informed by people on the inside who really witnessed it, and were shocked by
what they saw, high-level people. So I recommend the book. I want to thank you guys for coming
on. OK, that's it for this edition of Scheer Intelligence. Our engineers at KCRW are Kat Yore
and Mario Diaz. Our producers are Joshua Scheer and Isabel Carreon. I'm Robert Scheer, and
we're doing this broadcast from the University of Southern California Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism, where Sebastian Grubaugh, as he often does, has made the show
work, and I want to thank him.
From comments: "Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document
breaks down once you focus on individual claims. " What?!?
"... FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the "Steele Dossier ..."
"... The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down once you focus on individual claims. ..."
"... Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison with the TRUMP team." ..."
FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the
"Steele Dossier," the document the Obama FBI relied on to obtain a surveillance warrant on a member of the Trump campaign.
The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump
attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats,
reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
"We've talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere -- they don't believe that ever happened," said Miller during the
October event which aired Saturday on C-SPAN.
We literally spent weeks and months trying to run down... there's an assertion in there that Michael Cohen went to Prague to
settle payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. We sent reporters to every hotel in Prague, to all over the place
trying to - just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty . -Greg Miller
Ross notes that WaPo somehow failed to report this information, nor did Miller include this tidbit of narrative-killing information
in his recent book, "The Apprentice: Trump, Russia, and the Subversion of American Democracy."
Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down
once you focus on individual claims.
Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet
with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison
with the TRUMP team."
Cohen's alleged Prague visit captured attention largely because the former Trump fixer has vehemently denied it, and also
because it would seem to be one of the easier claims in Steele's 35-page report to validate or invalidate.
Debate over the salacious document was reignited when
McClatchy reported April 15 that
special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence Cohen visited Prague. No other news outlets have verified the reporting, and Cohen
denied it at the time.
Cohen last denied the dossier's allegations in late June, a period of time when he was gearing up to cooperate with prosecutors
against President Donald Trump . Cohen served as a cooperating witness for prosecutors in both New York and the special counsel's
office. - Daily Caller
Cohen's attorney and longtime Clinton pal Lanny Davis vehemently denied on August 22, one day after Cohen pleaded guilty in his
New York case - that Cohen had never been to Prague, telling Bloomberg " Thirteen references to Mr. Cohen are false in the dossier,
but he has never been to Prague in his life ."
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV that there was collusion but it just
didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at "Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his former personal lawyer a "Rat" which
of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying against you.
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet Julian Assange. These fictions were just
used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association
So here is a WaPo reporter saying they sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to find out if Cohen had been there, they spent
weeks and weeks researching, interviewing, and nothing. What they are not saying is that they also spent shitloads of Bezo's money
exploring all the other fake dossier claims.
And nothing.....all you hillarytards have been completely scammed by, your pulses sent aflutter with clickbait and page views
and thats it. So sorry you losers.
Yeah, like rubles are worth anything outside of Russia. Gold on the other hand ...
But seriously, you two should get a room. If you can't see the conspiracy in the Strzok/Page texts, the setup of Papadapoulous
by the Brits, the phony FISA warrant using the FBI informant, the setup of General Flynn, and the seedy cast of characters in
the DOJ breaking laws right and left, you should be checked for brain wave activity. You probably think the Russians paid for
all of the above too. Go suck a bag of Russian dicks.
Now more than ever, it is obvious that the federal criminal
justice system (with help from within the intelligence community) is being corruptly used to
try to remove the president of the United States, who was nominated through the Republican
Party to be on the general election ballot, and who after the election and confirmation by the
Electoral College, was sworn into office. Roger Stone, a long-time acquaintance of Donald
Trump, was arrested on criminal charges filed by "special counsel" Robert Mueller.
What matters in the 24-page indictment are pages 21-23 (page 24 has yesterday's date). The
Mueller group bootstrapped Stone's appearance on 26 September 2017 before the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) into seven charges: five for making false statements
under the proverbial Title 18, U.S. Code, section 1001; one charge for obstructing a
"proceeding", which was the HPSCI event; and one for attempting to persuade and persuading
"Person 2" (probably Randy Credico) from testifying in the HPSCI event.
The charge of obstructing the HPSCI (count 1) is alleged to be: testifying falsely and
misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017; failing to turn over and lying
about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI's requests about documents; submitting a
letter to HPSCI falsely and misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and
attempting to have Person 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying. The
sections of Title 18 of the U.S. Code used in the indictment are in the notes below .
It would be interesting to know when and under what circumstances the transcript of Stone's
testimony to the HPSCI was given to the Mueller group. The whole thing involves who may or may
not have talked to whom at Wikileaks, called "Organization 1" in the indictment--
The e-mails released by Wikileaks revealed shenanigans at and by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Stone was arrested at his Florida residence at 6:00 a.m. today by gun-toting FBI agents,
with the whole thing being filmed by -- surprise, surprise! -- the CNN television network,
which perhaps knew to be there after consulting a Ouija Board .
After appearing before a federal magistrate in Florida, Stone was released on his own
recognizance by a signature bond, so he did not have to deposit any bail money or get a bail
The case is filed in a federal district court in Washington D.C., and the presiding judge is
Amy Berman Jackson, who is the judge in Paul Manafort's case that is in the D.C. federal
courthouse. Cases are normally assigned to a court randomly when they are filed, and it is not
known if that procedure was followed in this instance.
Looks like the color revolution against Trump continues. What is interesting is that while
Trump position becomes more and more shaky he does not want to fight. And he suppounded himself
with people, which will sell him at the first opportunity. I means first of all this neocon
"... It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. ..."
"... Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with respect to interference in the presidential campaign? ..."
"... Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game? ..."
"... I think, for what's it worth, that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx ..."
"... Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting. ..."
"... Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants. This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement savings and possibly long prison sentences. ..."
"... DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones. ..."
"... So much for the de facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up. ..."
I have had to shut off all of the media. The media/establishment hatred of Trump and their
desire to force him from office is palpable and on near continuous display on every cable
channel, including Fox. These pundits remind me of the drowning passengers from the Titanic,
flailing frantically while immersed in freezing water but going no where but down. They are
keen on avoiding facts. Let's be clear what the facts are about Roger Stone.
Roger Stone had an extremely short tenure with the Trump campaign. He served in an
undefined position as a "campaign advisor" and either quit or was fired on 8 August 2015.
Politico's account of the incident attributed Stone's departure to Trump's comments
regarding former Fox star, Megyn Kelly:
Regardless of who resigned or was fired first, the campaign shakeup was the first sign that
Trump's election effort was seriously damaged from within after his Thursday night debate
performance and his subsequent comments in which he attacked one of the Fox debate moderators,
Stone was never a critical component or the Trump campaign. He was not an insider and he was
not a "go to guy" for Trump's inner circle. The indictment smears Stone by an unsupported claim
that Stone had regular, continuing contact with unnamed persons affiliated with the Trump
campaign even after his August 2015 departure. Having conversations is not illegal. Moreover,
Stone was never a go to guy for the campaign.
Roger Stone does have a history with Paul Manafort, who served a brief tenure as
Trump's campaign manager. They formed a political consulting firm in 1980--
Black, Manafort, Stone
and Kelly --and became known as bare knuckle brawlers in the world of electoral politics.
They worked for Reagan and for George H.W. Bush. Worth noting that Manafort's time with the
Trump campaign started off in March 2016--seven months after Stone's departure--as an advisor
on going after delegates. He was promoted to campaign manager on May 19, 2016 and resigned from
the campaign on August 19, 2016 under the cloud of
being cozy with
The Trump campaign provided no reason for Manafort's resignation. But in the days
immediately leading up to the announcement, the
York Times reported investigators were looking into $12.7 million in undisclosed
cash payments to Manafort from former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, and the Associated
reported he helped a pro-Russian party in Ukraine funnel money to lobbying firms in
There is a lot of speculation about who Stone was talking to.
Person 1 in the
indictment is Jerome Corsi. Person 2 is Randy Credico. None were involved in any
substantive way with the Trump campaign. I would not be surprised if it was Manafort (or
someone acting at his behest) that reached out to Stone to see if he could get any additional
info about Wikileaks plans.
Roger Stone is a bullshitter and grand raconteur. He can tell you things that
sound spot on but are not true. I have first hand experience with him on this point. I first
met Roger in the spring of 1980. I was teaching in the Washington Semester Program at American
University and he spoke to my class. I did not see Roger in person again until March of
2018--we were on the same flight from Fort Lauderdale enroute to Washington. I introduced
myself and we got reacquainted. Subsequent to that meeting I watched the documentary on Roger
Stone and was amused to see him "credited" (or blamed) for starting the Whitey rumor--i.e., the
claim that there was a video tape of Michelle Obama using the phrase Whitey in a speech before
a group linked to Louis Farrakhan. Why amused? I started that rumor at the direction of Sidney
Blumenthal (I did not believe it was a rumor but I was gamed--but that is a story for another
I ran into Roger last August, again at the airport. This time it was Washington Reagan
National. I walked up to him and told him that he was being blamed for something I did. I
proceeded to tell the story and he laughed when he learned that this smear of Michelle came
from the Clinton Campaign. Roger is a connoisseur of dirty tricks.
With this background, I want you to take a fresh look at Mueller's indictment of Stone.
It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but
also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. (BTW, kudos
to Robert Willman for his excellent piece at Sic Semper).
During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials (NOT FURTHER
IDENTIFIED) about WIKILEAKS and information it might have had that would be damaging to the
Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about
future releases by Organization 1.
By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have
communicated with WIKILEAKS. By in or around mid-August 2016, WIKILEAKS made a public statement
denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with
WIKILEAKS had occurred through a person STONE described as a "mutual friend," "go-between," and
"intermediary." STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about
WIKILEAKS and its intended future releases.
Here is what this really demonstrates. First, Stone was talking out of his ass. He was
portraying himself to people in the Trump campaign (probably Manafort) as a guy with inside
knowledge. Based on what I know about Stone, I am sure he was playing this angle in hopes of
getting back into the good graces of the Trump campaign. Second, if the Trump organization was
actively colluding with the Russians and Wikileaks, why were they asking Stone to find out what
Wikileaks had and what it intended to do with such material.
This is the most critical revelation, in my view, from this indictment--the Trump campaign
did not know what Wikileaks had or what it intended to do. They were reaching out to an
outsider--a third party--who claimed to have contacts with Wikileaks. But Stone did not. In
typical Roger Stone fashion, his story kept changing. Initially he insisted he was in direct
contact with someone there. Not true. He then admitted that he was relying on the word of Randy
Credico. That probably was the truth. But Credico's information was second hand. Randy Credico
knew the wife of Julian Assange's deceased attorney--Margaret Ratner Kunstler, widow of
She did have contacts at Wikileaks and was in a position to tell Credico that more dirt on
Clinton was coming. But Stone was parlaying third hand information to present himself as a guy
with inside knowledge. That's not criminal. That is typical of Washington and the world of
What is being done to Roger Stone is wrong. He was playing politics and playing according to
Washington rules. It may not be pretty and may not be ethical. But it is not criminal and
certainly does not justify sending out a ninja clad SWAT team to take him into custody. I hope
some wealthy benefactors step up and help fund Stone's defense fund. He will win this case.
Mueller and his team are the ones who have crossed an ethical and moral line.
Thank you for that vital point that this indictment contradicts the Official Story that the
Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russians in regards to the Wikileaks DNC info.
After Thursday's news that Trump had decided to recognize the coup government in
Venezuela, I chose to subject myself to the Rachel Maddow Show to see the official reaction
of the Resistance™. She spent the entire first section of the show rehashing a story
about security clearances from a year ago. Obviously, the MSM is confused whether to be
against it, because TRUMP BAD, or to be for it, because ST. OBAMA imposed sanctions on
Mueller relieved them of the need to make those hard decisions by sending a heavily armed
swat team on a predawn raid of an extremely dangerous loudmouth old braggart. They could even
ignore the news that Elliot Abrams had been dragged back out of obscurity to oversee the rest
of the coup in Venezuela. How long before Secord and North are shipping weapons from Israel
to the noble freedom fighters of Venezuela?
RE: Roger Stone and his Pinocchio problems. To f***ing bad. As long as he has been around, if
he isn't smart enough to know that he can get his ass in a jam by lying to Congress or the
FBI, the dude isn't thinking too straight. This administration seems to have a problem with
truth telling, all the way from Trump to the numerous administration/campaign officials
indicted or plead guilty to lying to the FBI or Congress. Blaming Mueller for their dishonest
utterances is putting the shoe on the wrong foot.
Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI
appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled
Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with
respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified
all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with
respect to interference in the presidential campaign?
Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game?
Eric Newhill's comment is spot on. Why would anyone want to work for Trump's campaign and
be ruined financially and face legal jeopardy when all he does is tweet? His actions show
weakness and his opponents know it.
Jack, I'm assuming he is not doing those things because he is completely surrounded by the
Deep State who is already going after him one every front. Every time he has tried to cut
back on forever war he gets sabotaged by the Borg. The gov't is yuuuuge and Trump and his
small crew are peanuts compared to that. It's very difficult to make progress on his agenda
given the level of internal opposition he faces and how outnumbered he is.
From what I have
learned over the years the POTUS does not have much freedom. Obama talked about this too.
What you say sounds right enough to me - though I kind of have to take it on faith because
I've never been anywhere near the world you describe.
However, I think, for what's it worth,
that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people
associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from
working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an
illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion
derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx
Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of
allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for
any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting.
This file is then served up to a judge (or the Republican National Convention) with the
offered assumption that because the file is so voluminous, the allegations contained must be
I would expect to hear Trump labelled as a "troubled President" because, you know, he and
his campaign did all these illegal things, so he must be guilty of stuff, so he needs to be
impeached and can't stand in 2020, meh or whatever..........
Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at
people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of
discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants.
This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement
savings and possibly long prison sentences.
DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their
out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones.
So much for the de
facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he
stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up.
Essentially they are trying to control the US foreign policy. That's a sign of the slide to neofascism as under
neofascism intelligence agencies have a political role and are instrumental in crashing the dissent.
"... The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist NKVD. ..."
"... The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder, Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." ..."
"... Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television news. ..."
"... But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials." ..."
The Times claims that Trump "had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when
he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack the emails of his
opponent, Hillary Clinton." Given that this was a sarcastic campaign remark directed against
Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and delivered at a
public news conference, Trump's sally can hardly be construed as evidence of a conspiracy.
The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at
the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the
Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to
benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions
adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy
By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or
the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and
conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist
The agency also investigated four of Trump's campaign aides over possible ties to Russia,
and even made use of the notorious Steele dossier, consisting of anti-Trump gossip collated
from Russian sources by a former British intelligence agent on the payroll of the Democratic
After Trump fired Comey, according to the Times , "law enforcement officials became so
concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working
on behalf of Russia against American interests Counterintelligence investigators had to
consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national
security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or
had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid
rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder,
Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II
commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist
Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American
politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of
the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television
But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at
age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a
billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the
Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence
has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian
While there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Moscow, the Times report itself
is evidence of a conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies and the corporate media to
overturn the 2016 presidential election - which Trump won, albeit within the undemocratic
framework of the Electoral College - and install a government that would differ from Trump's
chiefly in being more committed to military confrontation with Russia in Syria, Ukraine and
A secret security investigation by a powerful police agency directed against an elected
president or prime minister can be described as nothing other than the antechamber to a coup by
the military or intelligence services.
Historically, the FBI has been at the center of such dangers in the United States. Its
founding director, J. Edgar Hoover, was notorious for his unchecked power, particularly during
the period of the McCarthy anticommunist witch hunt, when he accumulated dossiers on virtually
every Democratic and Republican politician and authorized widespread spying on civil rights and
President John F. Kennedy was so concerned that he installed his brother Robert as attorney
general - and nominal superior to Hoover - to keep watch over the bureau. That did not save
Kennedy from assassination in 1963 , an event linked in still undisclosed ways to ultra-right
circles, including Cuban exiles embittered by the Bay of Pigs disaster, Southern
segregationists, and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus up in arms over Kennedy's
signing of a nuclear test ban treaty with Moscow.
The New York Times report - and a companion piece published Sunday in the Washington Post
claiming that Trump has kept secret key details of his private conversations with Putin - serve
to legitimize antidemocratic and unconstitutional conduct by the military-intelligence
These reports shed light on the striking complacency in the "mainstream" media over Trump's
threats to declare a national emergency, using the pretext of his conflict with congressional
Democrats over funding of a border wall, which has led to a three-week-long partial shutdown of
the federal government.
If one takes for good coin the main contention of the reports by the two newspapers, their
acquiescence in a potential Trump declaration of emergency rule is inexplicable. After all, if
Trump is Putin's agent, then a Trump declaration of a state of emergency, giving him sweeping,
near-absolute authority, would put the United States under the control of Moscow.
The explanation is that the Times and the Post welcome the discussion of emergency rule, to
prepare the forces of the state for coming conflicts with the working class. Their only
disagreement with Trump is over which faction of the ruling elite, Trump or his opponents in
the Democratic Party, should direct the repression.
One thing is certain: if Trump declares a national emergency, or if, as the Post suggested
in an editorial, his opponents in the ruling elite declare a national emergency over alleged
Russian "meddling" as part an effort to remove him, it will represent an irrevocable break with
It is impossible to determine which side in this sordid conflict is more reactionary. The
working class is confronted with two alternatives :
either the present political crisis will be resolved by one faction of the ruling elite
moving against the other, using the methods of palace coup and dictatorship, whose essential
target is the working class,
or workers will move en masse against the political establishment as a whole and the
capitalist system that it defends.
Why, it is apparently the following, which is surely a red hot smoking gun. That is,
one that condemns the FBI, not Trump; and shows that the NYT , which once courageously
published the Pentagon Papers and had earned the above sobriquet for its journalistic
stateliness, sense of responsibility and possession of high virtue, has degenerated into a War
Party shill – not to say the journalistic equivalent of a comfort woman:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when he called on
Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent,
Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising
President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party
softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit
Well, for crying out loud!
Any journalist worth his salt would know that Trump's July 2016 shout-out to the Russians
was a campaign joke. At best, it was merely an attempt to cleverly state in one more way the
running GOP theme about Hillary's missing 30,000 emails. How many times before that had Sean
Hannity delivered his riff about Hillary's alleged hammer-smashing of 13 devices and
acid-washing with BleachBit of the missing emails?
while we are waiting for the final FINAL report of the endless interminable Mueller
investigation, perhaps best to review the Mueller report of Feb. 16 2018, and the conclusions
it drew: it identified 13 Russian nationals who were part of an organized effort based in the
Internet Research Agency. Those 13 Russians were named and indicted; if they step foot in any
Western space, they will be arrested and charged.
Oh, and the Americans? none named, none charged, none involved, concludes the Mueller
team. This likely presages the wet firecracker of the Mueller final report, and its look into
the media echo chamber's bottomless rumour mill.
just as good as you , 1 week ago
You seem to have forgotten the 33 indictments of 'Americans'. You seem to have forgotten
the 4 guilty pleas, and the 7 jail terms.
Yada yada yada.
Moseby1 , 1 week ago
Who do you think you're kidding?
Alex Van Der Zwaan
Kudos. I was just getting tired of typing the list, hence the "Yada yada yada".
Andy_Waxman1 , 1 week ago
Some of it happened pre-campaign, some of it is seriously dumb (Manafort not reporting
that he had a contract with the Ukraine), but much is Crimes of the Investigation - that is,
a crime caused by investigation. 'You told us you met with him Tuesday, but you met with him
Friday, you lied to the FBI, federal crime!' Like John Kelly. The actual meeting wasn't a
crime, though. Someone else tried to dangle a poll, "most of which was public," said the NYT.
At this point the Collusion Narrative is like the Pee Tape, waaaaay more Liberal
Wishful Fantasy than proof. So far, there's no there there. Just endless breathless NYT CNN
and Globe headlines. 'Nuclear war this weekend with NK!' Remember that one? Right wing
Birthers were fringe. Left wing Haters are MSM. Big hat, no cattle. Waiting for Bob M.
BuzzFeed Throws Hail Mary: Publishes New Trump Tower Moscow Docs
After last week's embarrassing debacle in which special counsel Robert Mueller issued a rare statement
calling bullshit on BuzzFeed over their Trump Tower Moscow report that Trump ordered his attorney Michael Cohen to lie about
the timeline, the beleaguered news outlet has taken a
second bite at the
apple with a new report (oddly written by a completely different journalist) refuting comments by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani
that "no plans were ever made" for the project.
Not so fast Rudy ...
In their new report, BuzzFeed claims that the Trump Tower Moscow idea was "led by Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his
associate Felix Sater" despite
writing in November that Sater both thought of and spearheaded the idea , turning to Cohen to "get it off the ground" while overpromising
that he could seal the deal through his Russian connections that never panned out.
Sater, a brash real estate promoter who pleaded guilty to racketeering in 1998 and became a
asset to US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, had worked with the Trump Organization on deals in the past and said
he came up with the idea. Cohen, Sater recalled, said, "Great idea." -
The president and his representatives have dismissed the project as little more than a notion -- a rough plan led by Trump's
then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his associate Felix Sater, of which Trump and his family said they were only loosely aware as
the election campaign gathered pace.
On Monday, his lawyer,
Rudy Giuliani ,
said "the proposal was in the earliest stage," and he went on to tell the
New Yorker that "no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file."
However, hundreds of pages of business documents, emails, text messages, and architectural plans, obtained by BuzzFeed News
over a year of reporting, tell a very different story. Trump Tower Moscow was a richly imagined vision of upscale splendor on
the banks of the Moscow River. -
Trump Tower Moscow hasn't exactly been a secret, admits BuzzFeed , noting that Donald Trump tweeted about it following the 2013
Miss Universe pageant, and writing in his book The Art of the Deal that he had been trying to expand his business empire into Russia
for over 30 years.
Over the last week, Giuliani admitted to the New York Times that the Trump Tower Moscow discussions were "going on from the day
I announced to the day I won," Giuliani quoted Trump as saying. He then
walked back those comments , claiming in a statement: "My recent statements about discussions during the 2016 campaign between
Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump about a potential Trump Moscow 'project' were hypothetical and not based on conversations
I had with the President."
In other words, Giuliani is a walking gaffe machine - which we already knew.
That said, the Trump Tower moscow project appears to have been much more developed than anyone in the Trump camp has acknowledged.
According to a finalized letter of intent signed by Donald Trump on Oct. 28, 2015, the tower would have "approximately 250
first class, luxury residential condominiums."
It would be located in Moscow City, a former industrial complex outside of the city center that has since been converted into
an ambitious commercial district clustered with several of the tallest skyscrapers in Europe.
Its hotel portion would feature "approximately 15 floors" and contain "not fewer than 150 hotel rooms," the letter of intent
stated. The building would feature a luxury spa and fitness center, a commercial component "consistent with the overall luxury
level of the Property," and an office space "consistent with Class A luxury office properties," as well as "luxury" parking. -
Also in the plan was "The Spa By Ivanka Trump," as well as a $50 million penthouse suite that they would give to Russian President
Vladimir Putin. "My idea was to give a $50 million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units," Sater
told BuzzFeed in November. "All the oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin."
Show Trump the money
The Trump Organization stood to make $4 million on an up-front payment for the deal; 25% of which would be paid upon execution
of the licensing agreement, another quarter when they finalized a location, and the other half a week before the project's groundbreaking
- or two years after the execution of the licensing agreement, whichever came first.
From there on out, Trump's company would also get a cut of all the condominium sales at the tower, the agreement stated. From
the total selling price of each unit, his company would get 5% for sales up to $100 million, 4% for the next bracket up to $250
million, 3% for anything between that and $500 million, 2% for anything up to $1 billion, and thereafter, a solid cut of 1%. For
commercial and office spaces, it would get a 3% cut of all the rent. It'd get another 3% of sales on food and beverages, spa and
fitness center use, and conference fees.
The deal also stipulated how much Trump's management company would get paid for running operations at Trump Tower Moscow over
25 years. For the first five years, it would get 3% of all revenue generated by operating the hotel per month. Over the next two
decades, it'd receive a flat 4%. In addition, the management company would also receive a monthly "incentive fee" -- an additional
20% of the gross operating profit for the hotel -- subject to annual negotiations. -
At the end of the day, Trump Tower Moscow has never happened - and Trump himself has turned out to be the worst "Putin Puppet"
ever after slapping heavy sanctions on Moscow and selling Ukraine weapons that the Obama administration wouldn't.
"Let's make this happen and build a Trump Moscow," wrote Sater to Cohen in October of 2015. "And possibly fix relations between
the countries by showing everyone that commerce & business are much better and more practical than politics. Help world peace and
make a lot of money, I would say that's a great lifetime goal for us to go after."
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- people over, destroy lives, and freedom for all, so long as they get a juicy title, paycheck and pension.
Pure, 100% commie bulls-.
These people need to put on a red shirt and a bulls' eye, have a war against them declared, and then they can be mowed down
one at a time until they run away from govt and never return, or they are all gone.
We are no doubt headed for all out neo-USSA communism. Better make sure you keep your guns!
And when (not if) the ****-0-craps have total power, the first thing they'll do is make it impossible to get a gun, and then
find a means to confiscate them. Before any tyranny we always see the new tyrant go after the guns. Then when the ppl are unarmed,
they move in for the kill - literally.
The commie jackass 'leaders' always talk about this it's for the children, safety, etc. But we all know that is a farce. The
real purpose is to disarm. Culturally, they have made us all capitulate to deviancy, where nobody dares question the immoral homosexual
behavioral choice. That is the kind of world we live in. Next stop, pedoland. "Don't judge me bro'".
Given that we now know (if we did not know already) that at LEAST 65% of the population is completely dependent on the government,
we live in a land where there are ultimate sheep, demented immoral sheep, government dependent and not productive sheep. We are
surrounded by people who are totally brainwashed, are easily swept up with the latest new world order dogma, and won't fight back
against anything, but accept everything, and do as they are told - for a morsel of bread.
Not sure what the solution is, but if you are a person with a moral compass in fairly good working order, and don't want your
pocket picked, and your business totally compromised by some bureaucrat. best be looking for one.
The media won't understand talking to Russians to build in Russia and not talking to George Soros first is NOT a crime. Just
because that's what THEY do concerning everything doesn't mean Trump has to also.
zzzzzzzzzz, but the ****-0-craps will be all rage and fury over some sort of fantasy land egotistical it'll never happen building
in Moscow. Pretty pictures, though.
And to the idiot poster who keeps claiming this is 'bribery', that means 1) there would have to be something to be given in
return that was unlawful on some level, and 2) there was intent, and 3) a discussion about the nature and quality of the bribe
actually took place between the bribor and bribee.
I get the uniparty thing, but some of the leftie dickheads that post here are really stupid. Colossally dumb.
Somebody said below we get nothing but bolshevik-speak from these marxists. They open the mouth and voila! a 'fact' is born.
And on that basis a conviction. Matters not if the 'fact' disappears someday, so long as today the 'fact' gives them the
pretense to destroy someone that gets in their way.
The 60's hippies 'left' was all down on the 'man'. 'I just want to be freeeeeeee man' they would say.
ha, such bulls-. The truth is they are all lining up at the govt trough to get their piece of the action. It doesn't matter
that they f- p