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
DNC and Podesta emails leak and subsequent false flag operation to blame Vladimir Putin using Crowdstrike honchos
Was it a false flag operation by rogues in one of three US
intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) which later produced Jan. 6
? Binney stated that if it were a “hack,” the NSA would have
been able to detect it and make the evidence known.
Dems became the party of corruption: the DNC did conspire against Sanders
Who are those Crowdstrike "experts" who tell us those were Russians? Are those the same "experts"
who found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or the same who claim that Hillary bathroom email server was
“The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private
email server—which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to
China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data — was not hacked by the Russians
now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians”
I didn’t have a conspiracy with that woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Today, while reading Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables ,
I unexpectedly came across a passage which fittingly describes the DNC:
They are practiced politicians, every man of them, and skilled to adjust those
preliminary measures which steal from the people, without its knowledge,
the power of choosing its own rulers…This little knot of subtle schemers
will control the convention, and, through it, dictate to the party.
Wikileaks proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Democratic National Committee under Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, in fact, served as the Hillary Clinton Coronation Committee, operating, step by step, to ensure
that the front-runner would become the party’s nominee. There nothing democratic about National Democratic
Committee. It is an elitarian structure dominated by neoliberals (Clinton wing of the party), which
have nothing to do with democracy, but a lot with Wall Street domination in the political life in the
country. They also served as a powerful catalyst of rising far right nationalism.
Essentially Bill Clinton created Trump.
There are strong reasons to beleave that DNS email hack was not hack but an internal leak, Here is a twit from Kim dotcom (quoted
from Zero Hedge ):
Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who
did it and why. Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied.
If this is true than Crowdstrike is really sinister and criminal organization which implanted Russian malware into DNC servers in
order to frame Russians in the leak which from now on was presented as hack by Russian intelligence or some group pf hackers
connected to the Russian government.
Instantly after the revelations about DNC hack (and later Podesta email breach -- Podesta
essentially gave up his password to people who were behind primitive the fishing attack
on his Gmail account) neocon propaganda machine and major neoliberal MSM like CNN and MCNBC was put in overdrive. They fed the US
lemmings (aka voters) that the diabolical Russian hackers were behind the DNC hack. Everything
they do not like now is the result of Russian hack. Primitive but pretty effective strategy. In
other words this Rove-style "bait and switch" trick to brainwash the public into believing that what the DNC actually did was not reprehensible,
but its exposure was:
For Dem [media] tycoons, it’s habit. They stand behind Hill for Imperial hegemony and Full Spectrum
Dominance wherever money can be extorted, always the case in our squalid, half-assed military debacles.
They get that looting nations and winning wars are not the same, and only one of them matters. For Repub Capos it’s a stickier wicket but not much. For a Conservative to even consider backing a Democrat,
and a Clinton at that, would have been unthinkable last May, but since no Republicans actually are
conservative, they figure why cling to yesterday, and they go with their lack of principles. What
horrifies them in Trump is not his racism, sexism, or crudity: those are their hole cards, beloved
of their Redneck Division. What actually outrages them is that in knocking imperialism, policing
the world and puppeteering NATO and Japan, in shrinking empire and friending Russia, he threatens
directly the War Machine and its limitless sugar tit from Congress.
After Comey testimony some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis
is that it was a false flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later
assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder
investigation and Warren commission.
And I am now not surprised that nobody investigated Comey for outsourcing (or forced to outsource
by threats) the "DNC hack" investigation to the very questionable firm with strong Ukrainian connections.
Which might well be hired to perform the hack and blame it on Russian to hide Seth Rich story.
If Trump would not be such an idiot, he would site this as a reason of firing Comey (gross
unprofessionalism and criminal negligence) and the level of fear in Clinton Mafia after that might
help him to survive.
The truth is that FBI never has any access to DNC computers. None. Unlike in case of Hillary
emailgate, they never were in possession of actual hardware. And they never explored Ukrainian
connection, so to speak. They took all results from Cloudstrike investigation at face value.
So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color
revolution scenario: the attempt to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government
via a coup d'état.
The fighting against Russiagate is about the defense of remnants of Democracy in the USA.
Regurgitation of MSM stories, like Fred is doing, does not add much value to this blog. It
is essentially a propaganda exercise. If your urge to share them is too strong, as Mr.Bill mentioned
a simple link would be enough (actually the desire to read on this topic NYT might be considered
as an early sign of dementia, or Alzheimer)
Despite all this "Russians are coming" smoke screen and attempt to divert attention on Russia that
Clinton campaign tried to propagate via subservant MSM, the truth is that the Democratic National Committee
under its Obama-installed leader Wasserman-Schultz (and that means with direct blessing of the Obama,
who put his political weight behind Hillary and shielded Hillary from criminal prosecution) had from
schemed against other primary candidates and first of all Bernie Sanders to get Clinton elected.
Welcome to the USSR comrades: Politburo knows everything and will decide what is best for you. You need
just relax and vote as they say. Everything will be fine (100-Page
Report Shows Staggering Evidence of Election Fraud in Democratic Primary Cosmoso)
A recent report from Election Justice USA shows as many as 184 delegates were stolen from
Bernie Sanders due to election fraud in the Democratic Primary
While it’s unclear
whether the super delegates would have voted for Sanders, the EJUSA report does make one thing clear:
Bernie Sanders won the majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic Primary at 2030 to Hillary
These numbers were arrived at by EJUSA’s intensive research and verification into claims of voter
suppression, unintended party affiliation changes, heavy voter purging, and registrations never being
honored by the Board of Elections in various counties throughout the U.S. during the Democratic Primary.
In some cases, signatures were even forged on party affiliation documents and evidence of computer
hacking being involved has come to light.
The fact that the emails exposed a coordinated effort to rob Bernie (which is a criminal offence
in any state that called itself democratic as it interfere with the will of the people) was swiped under
the carpet. The DNC emails released
by WikiLeaks showed that the Democratic National Committee has been implementing a coordinated multi-staged
plan to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign. It also reveled an attempt to control media coverage (so
that it benefitted Hillary) and the neoliberal MSM collusion with the DNC. It is now clear that the
democratic presidential primary was rigged from the start and Hillary is an illegitimate candidate.
If nothing else, the crooked primaries process revealed just how much the DNC has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Clinton family, that can't even maintain the pretense of neutrality or impartiality--as
the DNC's charter requires. And it's also exposed just how much the Fourth Estate has abandoned even
the pretense of being the public's watch-dogs for the role of being the Clinton's lapdogs -- fitting
classic definition of the "courtier press". Now they are shamelessly preying on peoples'
lack of understanding of computers trying to hide their criminal behaviour by
"Putin did it" smoke screen. They are also shamelessly
preying on naive peoples' trust in experts, which has serious downstream effects when these "experts"
are debunked. The way that the Russia-Trump storyline has been pounded into our consciousness by the
media and the Democratic Party, including at the convention in prime time, is a calculated effort to
take our eye off the ball and is a classic “shoot the messenger” tactic.
Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, but her campaign is acting
completely hysterical. Intead of welcoming transparency and investigating corrupt DNC officials involved
in the plot against Sanders, they try to "kill the messenger" trick. This whole Putin-hack thing
if a pure anti-Russian hysteria. There is no proof that Russia or Russian hackers were involved.
And if hack was really sophisticated there will be no proof as after certain amount of time evidence
(connection logs on routers and such) disappeared. NSA might still have something but they typically
do not revel what they know.
\Instead this is another demonstration of how corrupt Hillary is as a politician. Like mafia
boss she will stop at nothing at achieving her goals -- in this case the goal is to become the
President of the USA. And this is not the first instance of "Hillary" poisonous effect on anything
she touches. Let's remember that she went into State Department to get the foreign policy experience
and now has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects
and things that go "boom".
Funny though, formally Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC
Board of Directors and team Hillary. If any blame should go around, it should splash onto
all individuals in DNC, not just Schultz. Moreover, her boss, "constitutional scholar" Obama,
in this particular case also looks like a regular Chicago Mafiosi: he and his DNC accomplishes
swindle the millions of Americans who donated on average $27 to Bernie's campaign hoping (falsely as
we know now) that it was a fair contest...
Why did "Crooked Hillary" directed her puppets in DNC to sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to, as
she got super delegates in her pocket from the very start. But like many sociopaths she did because
she can. Now many Bernie backers won't vote for her.
This election is about establishment (and
that means that people are not voting for, they're voting against) and Hillary is an establishment candidate.
A female successor of neoliberal "bait and switch" king Obama; who is widely hated because of his support
of TPP. )
I think she lost quit a bit of votes due to this scandal. This election cycle the vote
against establishment politicians might be stronger than the vote for them. That's why Jeb Bush lost.
We shouldn't get roped into discussing allegations about who leaked the emails. That's
what Hillary wants the conversation to be about. It is the content of emails and thier authenticity
that matter. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. This has
been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare
their coverage (or the lack of thereof) to the 24x7 coverage Melania Trump's plagiarised speech
We shouldn't get roped into discussing allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what Hillary
wants the conversation to be about. It is the content of emails and their authenticity that matter.
The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. This has been so downplayed
by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare their coverage (or the lack
of thereof) to the 24x7 coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got.
Clinton, who received 3.1m from Wall Street for speeches last year, and who was "extremely careless"
with national security and who clearly lied under oath to Congress had the entire system rigged in
her favour and millions of mostly younger people who supported Sanders have received a slap in the
face by a corrupt Dem Party.
Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down
months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention
Like Clinton foundation and its affiliate entities, the DNC, could be considered a criminal enterprise
or racketing influenced organization. Those who haven’t realized that, or worse, who shill for them
are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer
with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention
The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from
Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to
being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and
austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens.
Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning
to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are
100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently
I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the
chaos avoids Maryland.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and DNC staff served as part of Clinton campaign and designed and amplified
phony attacks on Sanders. Krugman plays the role of Clinton surrogate, using campaign talking points
and spin to claim that Sanders is “over the edge”. They launched a a systematic attack basically
questioning his authenticity. These are mostly cheap swiftboating attacks and straw man arguments coming
from the mainstream media and DNC insiders. The attacks are usually passive-aggressive, as in
the New York Times ignoring him for long stretches and then coming up with the occasional dismissive
"he can't possibly win, because we say so" tripe. They often reek of cheerful condescension. See
Then there was more dangerous theme casting Sanders as a convenient prop for Hillary Clinton,
a supporting actor who exists only for the cosmetic purpose of "pushing her to the left." This trope
is becoming so over-used that people are beginning to notice that it is a dirty trick. These are dangerous
times for non-establishment politicians due to domination of neoliberal Political Correctness and corporate
neoliberal propaganda (The
Swift-boating of Bernie Sanders ):
We had the expected political reaction—the DNC, under the enlightened leadership of Hillary supporter
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has decided
PAC money from lobbyists is OK after all, thus freeing up David Brock’s Hillary PAC to do whatever
the hell it wants. The head of the Democratic party in Iowa, who has a pro-Hillary license plate,
has ruled out any sort of
recount on the voting in Iowa, about which a number of questions had been raised, but the media
appears to have moved on...
Hillary definitely has the 1% vote locked up ... but they are, after all, just 1%.
The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server—which
operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia,
and which contained top-secret national-security data—was not hacked by the Russians now are certain
that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.
Many in Camp Clinton and the media labeled Bernie Sanders’ supporters paranoid when they claimed
that the DNC was working against them. The hacked emails confirm that the DNC was in fact working
against them. One official proposed getting “someone,” presumably a reporter, to ask Sanders if
he’s an atheist
to discredit him in religious areas.
pro-Clinton media bias were dismissed during the primaries. The hacked emails confirm that
the DNC was working closely with the media to seek negative coverage of Sanders and positive coverage
Politico now admits it was a “mistake” sending the DNC an article draft
in advance. The writer showed the draft to the DNC even before his own editors saw it.
The DNC appears to have expended significantly more effort against Bernie Sanders than it
did against any of the Republican candidates.
Instead of focusing on the contents of the hacked emails and the dirty tricks they exposed,
many mainstream-media outlets headlined instead the Clinton-campaign talking point that the Russians
hacked the emails and released them in an effort to derail her candidacy in favor of Donald Trump’s.
Many of the same stories suggest Trump is some sort of pro-Putin stooge.
On 60 Minutes, Clinton refused to say that intervention by the DNC to favor one candidate
was “improper.” Her non-answer was
edited out of the broadcast when it ran on Sunday; the network later released it online.
After DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her
resignation following this week’s Democratic convention, the Clinton campaign announced Wasserman
Schultz would be
hired by them as “honorary chair of Hillary’s campaign’s 50-state program to elect Democrats
in every part of the country, and as a surrogate for her campaign nationally.”
Wasserman Schultz will be replaced as DNC chair by (only now former)
CNN commentator Donna Brazile. Brazile argued the pro-Clinton side of debates on CNN throughout
the primary season.
In the hacked emails, Brazile said “I will
cuss out the Sanders camp!” over complaints by Sanders of inadequate representation by the
DNC. In March, while still employed by CNN, Brazile called Sanders’ decision to run as a Democrat
(rather than an independent) for the additional media exposure “extremely disgraceful.”
Sadly, Bernie Sanders, his campaign sabotaged by the DNC—and what were once “paranoid” accusations
now proved—still endorses Hillary Clinton and will still speak at the Democratic National Convention.
It pains me to say, as his once-supporter, that the man has no courage. Even Ted Cruz stood up for
himself in front of the Republicans in Cleveland. It is a sad day when we learn Ted Cruz has more
guts than Bernie Sanders.
Those who are calling all this a coup of sorts—they’re wrong. It’s a surrender. But in the words
of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?
All this dirty tricks define the future of Democratic Party. Seriously. Less and less people are
believing that Democrat represents them. I think half of trade union members will vote Trump. That's
a direct result of the sellout by Bill Clinton of Democratic Party to Wall Street. A vote for
Mrs Clinton means a continuation of the rule of financial oligarchy what we've experienced since Reagan,
and that is not acceptable. Another four years of amoral enrichment of transnational corporations
that Hillary election guarantee is just kicking can down the road.
Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.
Only Jedi Knights can stop him.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that
Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton
and deleted from her private email server.
Bullsh**t that MSM are now propagating is essentially a variation of the old theme "The
Russians are Coming". Here is nice satire on the topic (washingtonsblog.com):
MC: President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically
release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?
MC: Yes! Are you serious?
Putin: I’m quite serious.
MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
Putin: Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions
surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to destabilize
our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they’re sort of funny,
don’t you agree?
MC: I’m not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?
Putin: You’ve got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman.
Of course, nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She’s not independent.
Quite the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes
to strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged
game to win the nomination?
MC: Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?
Putin: This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the
focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That’s fine for now but what
happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost Hillary?
Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and remains Hillary’s
agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people hear about
Wasserman-Schultz’s key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear. It’s
adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal
about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the gate.
DNC and Clinton are going to push the Russian card very hard in anticipation of further stories and
revelations of corruption, money laundering, etc. Technical analysis provided is some idiotic,
entry level nonsense. And it should ne complete bulsh*t as those cases are very complex and can used
smokescreen -- deflecting attention from a read source (for example Israel) to Russians (Israel has
large Russian speaking population, that is well represented in security services of the country; CIA
can imitate Russian attack even better then Israel, actually they can imitate attacks from any
country; hacks are a perfect opportunity to stage a false flag operation -- they there is not better
specialists in this area that CIA ).
When the USA opened this can of worm with Stixnet (discovered around mid 2010) and Flame (discovered
around 2012), they did not expect a blowback. Now it start coming: it is simply impossible to secure
"normal" Microsoft-based IT system against any sophisticated adversary. Remember that we live in the
period when developed by NSA and "friends" Flame and Stixnet worm are part of the recorded history.
And technologies used in them are well studied by all major world three letter agencies. They
became a part of their workbook. And the response to their devilishness they generated even more
devilish methods of attack of any IT infrastructure based on Microsoft technologies, to say nothing
about such low hanging fruit as completely corrupt DNC with semi-competent IT staff using
pathetic Microsoft Exchange based email system: (naked
Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular
until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal
log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then –
once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over
*those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat
For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open
wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to
another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another
anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking)
then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them,
FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail
account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later
from a completely different set of servers.
In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end:
some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log
files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis
to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal
PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.
If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get
lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e.,
rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered
things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was
more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself
an attempt at obfuscation.
Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any
log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute
a hack to anyone at this point.
So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!
Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…"
– this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard
signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known
Russian hacking groups'.
That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten
me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools
get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the
community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent
hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things
into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)
I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck
from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind
'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I
guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE
RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.
The whole episode reminds me of
the Sony hack , for which Obama
also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly - to beg the question here - the blaming
was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!
JacobiteInTraining's methodology also reminds me of NC's coverage of Grexit. Symbol manipulators
- like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are
as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are. In Greece, for example, it really was a difficult technical
challenge for Greece to reintroduce the drachma, especially given the time-frame, as contributor
Clive remorselessly showed. Similarly, it's really not credible to hire a consultant and get a hacking
report with a turnaround time of less than a week, even leaving aside the idea that the DNC just
might have hired a consultant that would give them the result they wanted (because who among
us, etc.) What JacobiteInTraining shows us is that computer forensics is laborious, takes time, and
is very unlikely to yield results suitable for framing in the narratives proffered by the political
class. Of course, that does confirm all my priors!
There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers
and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that,
among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some
of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack
analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.
Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by
those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are
blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address - 176.31.112[.]10 - that
was hard coded
in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers.
Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as
the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department
domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little
time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.
Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and
Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact,
Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher,
whose technical analysis was
Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Mind you, he has two additional problems with that claim alone.
This piece is a must read if you want to dig further into this topic.
 More than a talking point but, really, less than a narrative. It's like we need a new word
for these bite-sized, meme-ready, disposable, "throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick"
stories; mini-narrative, or narrativelette, perhaps. "All the crunch of a real narrative, but none
of the nutrition!"
 This post is not about today's Trump moral panic, where the political class is frothing
and stamping about The Donald's humorous (or ballbusting, take your pick) statement that he
"hoped" the Russians had hacked the 30,000 emails that Clinton supposedly deleted from the email
server she privatized in her public capacity as Secretary of State before handing the whole flaming
and steaming mess over to investigators. First, who cares? Those emails are all about yoga lessons
and Chelsea's wedding. Right? Second, Clinton didn't secure the server for three months. What did
she expect? Third, Trump's suggestion is just dumb; the NSA has to have that data, so just ask them?
Finally, to be fair, Trump shouldn't have uttered the word "Russia." He should have said "Liechtenstein,"
or "Tonga," because it's hard to believe that there's a country too small to hack as fat a target
as Clinton presented; Trump was being inflammatory. Points off. Bad show.
For those interested, the excellent interviewer Scott Horton just spoke with Jeffrey Carr,
an IT security expert about all this. It's about 30 mins:
Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and CEO of Taia Global, Inc., discusses his fact-checking
of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo article that claims a close alliance between Trump and
Putin; and why the individuals blaming Russia for the DNC email hack are more motivated by
politics than solid evidence.
Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language
is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party.
Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise
how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to
Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy.
and again, we see the cavalier attitude about national security from the clinton camp, aggravating
the already tense relationship with russia over this bullshit, all to avoid some political disadvantage.
clinton doesn't care if russia gets the nuclear launch codes seemingly, but impact her chances
to win the race and it's all guns firing.
Well yeah, and I could be a bot, how do you know I'm not?
Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian
or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public
and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties
metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight,
and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands.
But that doesn't mean A) the original penetration occurred under state control (or even in
Russia proper), much less B) that Putin Himself ordered the hack attempts, which is the searing
retinal afterimage that the the media name-dropping and photo-illustrating conflation produces.
Unspoofed, the Cyrillic fingerprints still do not closely constrain conclusion to A, and even
less to B.
Another name for the trick DNC used is "Catch a chief" -- a deflection of attention from their own
criminal behaviour. But they should now be really afraid about what can come next from Wikileaks or
elsewhere. I don't think Hillary was capable to understand how easy it is to find corruption, especially
when there's a email trail. And this lack of understanding is a typical feature of a sociopath
As Guardian reported (The
Guardian) Clinton campaign tried old "dog eat my homework" trick blaming everything on Putin and
trying to ignore the content of them and the dirty laundry they expose:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accused Russia of meddling in the 2016 presidential election, saying
its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to foment disunity
in the party and aid Donald Trump.
Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian
state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose
of helping Donald Trump”.
“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails are being released on the eve of our convention
here,” he told CNN’s State of the Union, alluding to the party’s four-day exercise in unification
which is set to take place this week in Philadelphia.
“This isn’t my assertion,” Mook said. “This is what experts are telling us.”
In a statement, the Clinton campaign repeated the accusation: “This is further evidence the Russian
government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.”
Classic scapegoating. As Guardian commenter noted "Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak
more significant than the content of the leak??
As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing
e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.
In any case a major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it
didn't like behaviors like a Mafioso clan, and when caught red handed start to deflect attention via
corrupt and subservant MSM, changing focus into Russia and Putin instead. Great journalism!"
I find very I interesting that, somehow, the initial DNC leak story failed to make a headline
position (a day late, at that) on the Guardian, but now that it's blown up on other channels,
the DNC's ridiculous conspiracy theory/distraction attempt gets top billing here. Ridiculous.
Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak more significant than the content of the leak??
A major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it didn't
like, and somehow we're talking about Putin instead. Great journalism.
Chanze Jennings -> atopic
The Guardian has sunk to a new low and has entirely no shame. It's a sad day for journalism
when Twitter has more integrity than most news outlets. And they wonder why newspapers are going
the way of the Dodo. Remember when real journalists presented stories with little bias and tried
hard to stick to the facts?
BTW there are some real experts on this and they have a different opinion. Check comments for the
DNC betrayed Bernie Sanders and the rest of America. But at this moment Sanders already folded. In
other words, the Clinton mafia again created a mess. And they are now turning to Sanders — the very
one they betrayed — to come in and clean it up. In effect Clinton mafia wants Sanders persuade
his supporters not to harbor any ill feelings over being stabbed in the back. That gave him perfect
opportunity to reneg of his promised and run as independent or with Green Party
Bernie caved. A pity really, but understandable given the fact that
the collusion between a corrupt Hillary campaign and a mendacious "free" media meant that even getting
to the Convention floor was a struggle.
NYT now is afraid to open comments on this as they will swamped with denunciation of Hillary.
Sanders lied to his supporters that Trump represents bigger danger then Killary. nobody represent bigger
danger then Killary. Bernie Sanders, hypocrite, or canny operator? Is this another hostage situation
and with what Clinton criminal cartel threatened him ? “This campaign is not really about
Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency,”
Sanders told a New Hampshire crowd Tuesday in a speech endorsing Hillary Clinton. “This campaign
is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crisis that we face.”
Posting under the hashtag #SandersSellsOut, sanders supporters drew parallels with a previous
uncomfortable endorsement of a presidential candidate, labeling it “another hostage situation.” Most
view his endorsement on Monday, as the infidelity in a relationship and a bad break up.
Democratic voters are now splintered over neoliberal globalization, much like Republican supporters.
Most already made decisions whom they will support and Clinton mafia has little chances to move those
who reject their criminality and support of neoliberal globalization. It was actually Bill Clinton who
sold the party to Wall Street making it another wing on neoliberal party of globalist and transnational
The Democrats' dirty laundry was aired at a worse possibly time for Hillary and I hope she will pay
for DNC manipulations full price. It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the
Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the neoliberal globalization that
dominated the US and Britain economic and foreign policy since the 1970th, if not earlier. The
willingness of people to be intimidated by bought neoliberal economists into supporting cosmopolitan
outcomes appears for the moment to have been exhausted.
ABC and CNN are essentially part of the DNC propaganda wing. They and most other MSM were trying
to reshape this mess to reduce the amount of damage. Stephanopolis worked for Bill Clinton. And
donated $75,000 to Hillary's campaign. And now he is trying to paint Trump as having ties to the Putin
You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that. A Saudi Prince has admitted to
funding a large portion of Hillary's campaign. That is a tie. All the money she took from those
countries while benefiting them as Secretary of State is a tie.
Know Mei > deanbob
"Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what we do," Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Oh, believe me, Debbie, the American people know what
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party does. Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant
high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and railroad the vote of the American electorate.
However, business as usual did not work well for the Republican Party elitists this primary season.
Donald Trump beat the Republican Party elitists at their game. Bernie Sanders attempted to do
the same to the Democratic Party.
I think they are being short-sighted. Trump will in all likelihood win now and I don't see
him sticking to the script. The media has completely betrayed the American public on this
story. From Facebook and Twitter blocking and deleting stories re: same initially - to now with
the non-articles we are getting from the big news agencies. Finding decent, honest news coverage
shouldn't be so hard.
William Carr > Know Mei •
“Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and
railroad the vote of the American electorate”
In reality Wikileaks exposed the blatant corruption of the primary process for voters. The elephant
was in the room, but the real situation with Democratic Party primary process is now suppressed.
Mysterious assassination of Seth Rich
Seth Conrad Rich, a 27-year-old who worked for the Democratic National Committee as the voter
expansion data director died of multiple gunshot wounds in the 2100 block of Flagler Place on July
10, 2017. The police reported it as a robbery, but nothing on Seth was taken. Seth’s cash, phone,
and belongings were all still on him when he was found.
Before Seth started working at the DNC two years ago, Rich was a research associate for Greenberg
Quinlan Rosner for two years, according to his LinkedIn page. The 2011 Creighton University graduate
also worked for former Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s campaign and interned in his office.
There are a lot of rumors going around about his death and if it was a hit job. Below OAN
reported on the murder and below that is a possible explanation of his assassination and all of the
information is documented.
/u/MyKettleIsNotBlack:The Clintons have known the Kleebs since at least 2008. Scott Kleeb
started a business the Clinton Global Initiative was found fraudulently
supporting. Seth Rich was deeply entrenched with the Kleebs from their
Nebraska Democratic work. Seth Rich was hired onto a position in the DNC out
of a job from a data consulting firm which had previously worked with
President Clinton, which was opened up because the Clintons pushed for the
Voter Expansion project so that 2008 didn’t happen to Hillary in 2016. Seth
Rich has at least 2 connections to the Clintons. Jane Kleeb is a voracious
environmentalist/Sanders supporter who might’ve prompted Seth Rich to leak
the emails, especially after their business was one month earlier revealed
for fraudulency. The best way to cover their tracks would be to make this
seem like another right-wing conspiracy. His murder was deemed a robbery,
but nothing was missing from his person.
Seth Conrad Rich’s
unsolved murder on a Washington D.C. street was very suspecious because he was a
staffer and self-described data analyst for the Democratic National Committee and has
access to the emails that were leaked.
offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich’s death
(that’s in addition to a previous $25,000 reward being offered in the case).
Most recently, Rod Wheeler, a private investigator recanted claims he made to Fox
5 in Washington D.C. about Rich and WikiLeaks – claims that are disputed by Rich’s
Newsweek has now reported that the FBI is not investigating the Rich murder, and
is quoting the private investigator as denying he has any firsthand knowledge of
purported Rich/WikiLeaks contact.
According to the New York Times, the Rich family is demanding retractions from
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that
the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single
source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian
hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted
it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect.
OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians
not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites
the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have
been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of
a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated,
turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen
documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on
Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee
Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever
have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide
you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have
access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class
entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the
time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand
the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to
go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if
their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed
NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian
President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking
Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.
In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US
government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all
are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is
so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.
For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved
in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI
and NSA had been "handpicked."
On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan
confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.
those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to
repeat the false claim. In
comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a
flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator
and Secretary of State, is hard to get."
A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies
in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her,
"They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have
talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed
me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably
better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he
and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."
As I noted in a
Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge
that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president
has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic
emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has
been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.
"At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting
or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis
Explaining the Technology
More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables
hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the
hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will
think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and
subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions.
Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing
the source of cyber attacks.
"Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to
put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia.
Can't you imagine it happening? I can.
"Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination
was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule
it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while
making a reference to Russia in the process. "
Kelly: "Let's move on."
However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well
not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had
created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did
it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).
The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the
"Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required
the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money
and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians
hacked into Democratic Party emails.
In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually
one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper
– the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan
acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.
There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable
discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist
on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own
proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.
The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think
tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council
senior fellow and the
co-founder of Crowdstrike.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment
battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to
insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy
to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed
on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee
Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever
have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide
you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have
access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class
entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the
time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand
the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps,
NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might
have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who
very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high
esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an
oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman
on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total
of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium
Before I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm
hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its
conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its
analysis into question upon further inspection.
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "
Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the
White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process.
It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking
the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content
of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that
is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services
(RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does,
that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to
find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to
the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that
the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith
in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own
analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC
hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers
but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck
an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what
it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting
that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming
to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly
considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled,
Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S.
cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed
any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses
and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to
link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder
Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.
How is this not the biggest story in America right now?
Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company's report
in a Facebook
post . CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially
were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike
misinterpreted their data and hadn't reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.
In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.
"The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong
solely to the report's authors," the IISS said. "The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian
D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a
conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate."
In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses
from the ongoing fighting with separatists are "several times smaller than the number reported by
[CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause" of Russian hacking.
But Ukraine's denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike's report. Its release was widely
covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic
campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group-Fancy Bear-and
versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.
"The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel
in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling," Alperovitch said
December 22 story by The Washington Post .
The same day,
Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour : "And when you think about, well, who would be interested
in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic
Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that
would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."
Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center
in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights:
Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was
the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left
CrowdStrike last year.
CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA's written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch
canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA's Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman
Ilina Dimitrova defended the company's conclusions.
In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar
with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed
Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike's conclusions.
The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.
If the company's analysis was "delusional" when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence
that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?
"... 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."
"... 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.
Looks like Gussifer 2.0 person is a fake created to cover tracks and ofload the blame to Russians.
"... The phrase, "moderate confidence" is intelligence speak for "we have no hard evidence." ..."
"... Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as "full confidence." ..."
"... Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the server? This makes no sense. ..."
"... We know one thing for certain -- CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server. ..."
"... Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. ..."
By William Binney, former Technical Director NSA & Larry Johnson, former State CT and CIA
The FBI, CIA and NSA claim that the DNC emails published by WIKILEAKS on July 26, 2016 were
obtained via a Russian hack, but more than three years after the alleged "hack" no forensic
evidence has been produced to support that claim. In fact, the available forensic evidence
contradicts the official account that blames the leak of the DNC emails on a Russian internet
"intrusion". The existing evidence supports an alternative explanation--the files taken from
the DNC on between 23 and 25May 2016 and were copied onto a file storage device, such as a
If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network
then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National
Security Agency. The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002.
The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian
meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017
"Intelligence Community Assessment," regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election :
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high
confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
The phrase, "moderate confidence" is intelligence speak for "we have no hard evidence."
Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability
to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely "vacuumed up" email traffic transiting the
U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this
data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also
would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of
data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were
guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising
sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement
regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the
conclusion would have been stated as "full confidence."
We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major embarrassment if he decides to
pursue the indictment he filed -- which accuses 12 Russian GRU military personnel and an entity
identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for the DNC hack -- because the available forensic evidence
indicates the emails were copied onto a storage device.
In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the
presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign's chairman. Through that
process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous
individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers.
They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing
techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of
employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and
maintain access to these networks.
The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of
the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.
Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com
and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website.
On the website, defendants claimed to be "American hacktivists" and used Facebook accounts with
fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the
Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the
fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM,
defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases
that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian
hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian
Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the Wikileaks DNC files do not
support the claim that the emails were obtained via spearphising. Instead, the evidence clearly
shows that the emails posted on the Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such
as a CD-ROM or thumbdrive before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks
were saved using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.
An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May
respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How do we know? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files.
Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT
file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data
rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even
number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an
equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with
the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).
Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id
2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319
2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456
2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053
The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or
approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order. This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it
does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a
thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller's indictment accusing 12
Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense
attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device
(Eg., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.
We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have manipulated the files to produce the
FAT result by comparing the DNC email files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was
released on 21 September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If
Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from unknown sources
we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match the file structure of the
Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails
were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. Bill Binney, a former
Technical Director of the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence
community experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those emails
could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. It is a
simple matter of mathematics and physics.
Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on the public stage,
claiming that "he" hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late
June 2016 to publish documents as proof that "he" had hacked from the DNC.
Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value -- i.e., that his documents were obtained via an internet
attack -- Bill Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted
documents based on internet connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that
the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible
from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for
a thumb drive .
Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical expertise, extended the examination and
ran various tests forensic from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate
obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK--was 12 megabytes per
second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was
listed from Guccifer 2.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the Wikileaks data does not
prove who copied the information to a thumbdrive, but it does provide and empirical alternative
explanation that undermines the Special Counsel's claim that the DNC was hacked. According to
the forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an internet
spearphising attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the network.
There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the conclusion that the data breach
was a local effort that copied data.
First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward Snowden. If the DNC emails had
been hacked via spearphising (as alleged by Mueller) then the data would have been captured by
the NSA by means of the Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the
forensic evidence would not modify times - the data would be presented as sent.
Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre
timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's
experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which
they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike
claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan to avoid alerting the Russians that they had
been "discovered." This is nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a
house and stealing its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in
order to avoid alerting the thief?
We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last message copied from the DNC network
is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after
CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network.
Esquire's Vicky Ward that :
Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at
the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10,
all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.
Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive
Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the
information held on the server? This makes no sense.
A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that emails had been downloaded from
the server and copied onto a device like a thumdrive. But the culprit had not yet been
identified. We know one thing for certain -- CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and
repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server.
The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order
for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination. If this had been a
genuine internet hack, it would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was
taken and the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the technical
collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and time of the messages. But
that has not been done.
Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates
alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence
community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a
My understanding is that the Democratic Party person who passed the USB stick to Craig
Murray was not Seth Rich. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016 and Murray received the USB stick in
September of the same year. So there were quite a few disgruntled Democratic Party
whistleblowers at the time.
You're right - Seth Rich was not alive in September 2016. Craig Murray says he received a
package in a wooded area near the American University in Washington DC in September 2016 from
"the source" and that the leak source was the deed of a disgruntled Democrat employee.
@71 jen / 73 spudski... i went and checked craigs site, but was unable to find him mentioning
this.. i did re-read his post from july 3rd 2017 that came up in a search of seth rich..
The Stink Without a
to quote from it.. "That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of
Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact.
But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than
"Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever
been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA who
designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is
such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual
packets of that information as those emails travelled over the internet, and give a precise
time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there
wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian
hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce
any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying.
Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the
intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going
to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover
what actually happened." - why is that???
As you consider the weirdness of the Rich family, also keep in mind the substantial efforts
made to discredit and disable Assange/Wikileaks and Trump's call, in summer 2016) for Putin
to release Hillary's lost emails.
The timeline is as follows:
FBI report says Hillary emails contained highly classified info
By this time, Trump has all but locked up the GOP nomination - Michael Bloomberg makes
urgent public announcement that may enter the race to prevent Sanders and Trump from
Never Trump Movement is born
Trump hires Manafort
DNC is hacked
Trump Jr. meets with Russians that say they have info about Hillary
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result "was that
for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually
included the truth among the CIA hype:
"The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official
cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof
that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange,
called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."
"I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are
certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different
"If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known
to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside
the United States.
"America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about
extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it
vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against
Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is
deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
Thanks for the info. The Seth Rich story always bothered me. I also recall that in one
article CM was quoted as saying that who he got the leaked materials was not "the source."
Was the original source SR?
i tend to believe julian assange when he says the stakes are very high when one is
involved in sharing information that could be detrimental others - a large organization in
particular, and etc..
I suppose the 2 choices here are one believes either Seth Rich was murdered in a bad part
of Washington dc - conceivable, or that someone knew he had passed the emails and wanted to
kill him for it..
If you believe 2 - then you have to come up with a reason for why they had to kill him..
The reason jr appears to offer is it makes Russia and WikiLeaks the 2 main suspects, as
opposed to seth rich.. and on and on it goes..
I lean towards the later view which jr articulates, but i don't expect to ever find
"... Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group. ..."
"... Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn. ..."
"... Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to change. ..."
"... If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times  (or as the self supporting tercio was during the 30 Years War). ..."
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old
liberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to
explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter
the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old
elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively
crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group.
Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy
people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that
hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the
US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn.
Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian
propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to
Example: Reaction to yellow vests in France, which drew the reactions described in Cook's
article (at the root of this comment thread). "Back to your kennels, curs!" isn't effective
in situations like this, but it seems to be the only reply the EU has.
New groups take over when the old group has rotted away. At some point, Cook's third
alternative will be all that is left. The real question is what will be happening world wide
at that point. If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough
shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in
its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times  (or as the self supporting tercio was
during the 30 Years War).
1] To understand contemporary effect of WW I on survivors, think of a the survivors of a
group playing paintball who accidentally got hold of grenade launchers but somehow didn't
realize that until the game was over. WW II was actually worse -- people worldwide really
expected another industrialized war within 20 years (by AD 1965), this one fought with
"An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly told insurance executives in
private not to worry about Democrats' push for "Medicare for All." (The Intercept)"
Ryan Grim...February 5 2019...6:00 a.m.
"Less than a month after Democrats -- many of them running on "Medicare for All" -- won
back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to
then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and
assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and
was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that
Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health
care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices,
specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing.
Primus, in a slide presentation obtained by The Intercept, criticized single payer on the
basis of cost ("Monies are needed for other priorities"), opposition ("Stakeholders are
against; Creates winners and losers"), and "implementation challenges." We have recreated the
slides for source protection purposes.
Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see
strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end. He made his presentation to
the Blue Cross executives on December 4..."...
Personally, I am aghast. The Congress critters are in bed with the medical monopolies. One
example, among many:
The congressional endorsement of the ban on the importation of less expensive drugs,
claimed as a matter of safety, is a travesty. In the last several months, I have had two of
the drugs I take daily, recalled because the Chinese manufacturers shipped the drugs with a
measurable concentration of a known carcinogen in them. Safety, my aching ......
Democrats in action on health care include Max Baucus,Tom Daschle, and most infamously, Billy
"Two months before resigning as chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through
Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Democrats said that the bill was "a give-away
to the drugmakers" because it prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices
and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Veterans
Affairs agency, which can negotiate drug prices, pays much less than Medicare does. The bill
was passed in an unusual congressional session at 3 a.m. under heavy pressure from the drug
As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key player in 2009 health care reform negotiations that
produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.
Tauzin received $11.6 million from PhRMA in 2010, making him the highest-paid health-law
lobbyist. Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group. "
"Advocate groups attended a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May 2009 to protest their
exclusion as well as statements by Baucus that "single payer was not an option on the table."
Baucus later had eight protesters removed by police who arrested them for disrupting the
hearing. Many of the single-payer advocates said it was a "pay to play" event. A
representative of the Business Roundtable, which includes 35 memberships of health
maintenance organizations, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, admitted that other
countries, with lower health costs, and higher quality of care, such as those with
single-payer systems, have a competitive advantage over the United States with its private
At the next meeting on health care reform of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus had five
more doctors and nurses removed and arrested. Baucus admitted a few weeks later
in June 2009 that it was a mistake to rule out a single payer plan because doing so
alienated a large, vocal constituency and left President Barack Obama's proposal of a public
health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.
Baucus has used the term "uniquely American solution" to describe the end point of current
health reform and has said that he believes America is not ready yet for any form of single
payer health care. This is the same term the insurance trade association, America's Health
Insurance Plans (AHIP), is using. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution,
which argues for the use of private health insurance instead of a government backed
"Daschle co-wrote the 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis ISBN
9780312383015. He and his co-authors point out that "most of the world's highest-ranking
health-care systems employ some kind of 'single-payer' strategy - that is, the government,
directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals, and other
health-care providers." They argue that a single-payer approach is simple, equitable,
provides everyone with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars through economies of
scale and simplified administration. They concede that implementing a single-payer system in
the United States would be "politically problematic" even though some polls show more
satisfaction with the single-payer Medicare system than private insurance."
Health care giant Aetna will be the first official client for the former Democratic
leader, who's now running his own consulting shop within the law firm Baker Donelson. Daschle
will lobby for the health insurer on Obamacare implementation and Medicare and Medicaid rule
changes, according to a filing with the Senate Secretary.
"For fifteen years, Tauzin was one of the more Conservative Democrats in the United States
House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority
whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the
Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994
elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of
However, on August 8, 1995, Tauzin himself became a Republican"
"... 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
"... Voters by the millions dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the 1990s. ..."
If last year's election showed us anything, it's that anger and resentment are on the rise.
I hear it from small business owners and working-class families, from millennials and retirees.
There's a sense that we've lost our way, and that the blame rests squarely on our nation's
leadership. Simply put, Americans are sick of being patronized and sick of the same old ideas
that we, as Democrats, are going to keep offering them over and over and over again.
The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks
of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they've had it with all the
usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way
that's entirely transparent and frankly condescending.
That's something every American can count on.
It's no wonder voters are furious. Politics-as-usual has failed them, and they desperately
want change that the Democratic Party has no plan to bring about in any meaningful way. But let
me assure you, when our constituents tell us they've had enough broken promises, when they say
our actions haven't addressed their needs, we listen. We hear your concerns -- hear them loud
and clear -- then immediately discard them and revert back to the exact same ineffectual
strategies we've been rallying behind for years.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the polls are telling us. Voters by the millions
dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for
never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated
by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we
going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look
at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats
will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the
By the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie
for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic
decision, rather than a security issue.
Capitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the
state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends
executive comp and interest payments included
Well done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We
have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax
system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth
tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular
policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the
accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll
apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.
Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition
of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).
Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the
last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote
a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to
other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of
their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth
into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes
should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu,
during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll
than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net
worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make
this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on
the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia
quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an
hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a
better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive
integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic
lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children,
how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more
astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
"People on the left that identify as Democratic socialist, the left that supports Sanders or
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for them, Bernie got robbed in 2016," said Michael Kazin, the
Georgetown University historian and co-editor of Dissent. "They think the
Establishment is always looking for someone to go against Bernie -- to run against progressives
in the party and stop them from being ascendant. I think they are suspicious of Beto because he
has taken oil and gas money, he's becoming the darling of big donors, and Obama likes him."
Being liked by Obama, who won two presidential elections and left office with an 90
percent favorable rating among Democrats, might not seem like a disadvantage in a
Democratic primary. But to many on the left, Obama's sins are plentiful: he bailed out Wall
Street, half-assed the stimulus package and health-care reform, deported more undocumented
immigrants than any president, and prosecuted drone warfare that left piles of civilian
casualties across the Middle East. What especially chafes Sanders-style progressives is that
Obama cloaked a centrist neoliberal agenda in a soaring, feel-good rhetoric that charmed voters
and made them forget about all the bad stuff.
Obama was cool. So is O'Rourke. The lines, then, are quickly being drawn: Beto is just a
Davos Democrat on a skateboard.
"I'm not sure we need another Obama, or another of any Democrat we've had recently,"
Elizabeth Bruenig recently
wrote in The Washington Post, urging caution before Democrats rush to O'Rourke's
corner. "I think the times both call for and allow for a left-populist candidate with
uncompromising progressive principles. I don't see that in O'Rourke." She labeled O'Rourke
"progressive-ish," pointing to his "thin" statements on energy regulation and his membership in
the New Democrat Coalition, "a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education,
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.
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
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.
As usual, the pledge ultimately never changes, New jobs and No increase in taxes. Americans
love tag lines even though our infrastructure, poor education et al is the result of fear of
taxation. Both parties use the same tag line, we certainly get what we pay for.
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to
remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment,
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with
both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
The problem is not Russia; the problem is the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. And related legitimization of neoliberal
elite, which now Deep State is trying ot patch with anti-Russian hysteria
"... That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present. ..."
Baseless Russiagate allegations continue to risk war with Russia.
Anti-Trump Frenzy Threatens to End Superpower Diplomacy | The Nation
The New Year has brought a torrent of ever-more-frenzied allegations that President Donald Trump has long had a conspiratorial relationship
-- why mince words and call it "collusion"? -- with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Why the frenzy now? Perhaps because Russiagate promoters in high places are concerned that special counsel Robert Mueller will
not produce the hoped-for "bombshell" to end Trump's presidency. Certainly,
New York Times columnist
David Leonhardt seems worried, demanding, "The president must go," his drop line exhorting, "What are we waiting for?" (In some
countries, articles like his, and there are very many, would be read as calling for a coup.) Perhaps to incite Democrats who have
now taken control of House investigative committees. Perhaps simply because Russiagate has become a political-media cult that no
facts, or any lack of evidence, can dissuade or diminish.
And there is no new credible evidence, preposterous claims notwithstanding. One of The New York Times '
own recent "bombshells,"
published on January 12, reported, for example, that in spring 2017, FBI officials "began investigating whether [President Trump]
had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." None of the three reporters bothered to point out that those "agents
and officials" almost certainly included ones later reprimanded and retired by the FBI itself for their political biases. (As usual,
the Times buried its self-protective disclaimer deep in the story: "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly
in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.")
Whatever the explanation, the heightened frenzy is unmistakable, leading the "news" almost daily in the synergistic print and
cable media outlets that have zealously promoted Russiagate for more than two years, in particular the Times , The Washington
Post , MSNBC, CNN, and their kindred outlets. They have plenty of eager enablers, including the once-distinguished Strobe Talbott,
President Bill Clinton's top adviser on Russia and until recently president of the Brookings Institution.
According to Talbott
, "We already know that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker . Trump has been colluding
with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency." In fact, we do not "know" any of this. These remain merely widely disseminated
suspicions and allegations.
In this cult-like commentary, the "threat" of "a hostile Russia" must be inflated along with charges against Trump. (In truth,
Russia represents no threat to the United States that Washington itself did not provoke since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.)
For its own threat inflation, the Times featured not an expert with any plausible credentials but Lisa Page, the former FBI
lawyer with no known Russia expertise, and who was one of those reprimanded by the agency for anti-Trump political bias. Nonetheless,
the Times quotes Page
at length : "In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western
alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability to spread our democratic ideals."
Perhaps we should have guessed that the democracy-promotion genes of J. Edgar Hoover were still alive and breeding in the FBI, though
for the Times , in its exploitation of the hapless and legally endangered Page, it seems not to matter.
Which brings us, or rather Russiagate zealots, to the heightened "threat" represented by "Putin's Russia." If true, we would expect
the US president to negotiate with the Kremlin leader, including at summit meetings, as every president since Dwight Eisenhower has
done. But, we are told, we cannot trust Trump to do so, because,
according to The Washington Post , he has repeatedly met with Putin alone, with only translators present, and concealed
the records of their private talks, sure signs of "treasonous" behavior, as the Russiagate media first insisted following the Trump-Putin
summit in Helsinki in July 2018.
It's hard to know whether this is historical ignorance or Russiagate malice, though it is probably both. In any event, the truth
is very different. In preparing US-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) summits since the 1950s, aides on both sides have arranged "private
time" for their bosses for two essential reasons: so they can develop sufficient personal rapport to sustain any policy partnership
they decide on; and so they can alert one another to constraints on their policy powers at home, to foes of such détente policies
often centered in their respective intelligence agencies. (The KGB ran operations against Nikita Khrushchev's détente policies with
Eisenhower, and, as is well established, US intelligence agencies have run operations against Trump's proclaimed goal of "cooperation
That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy
of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding
information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo
afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin
leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present.
Nor should we forget the national-security benefits that have come from private meetings between US and Kremlin leaders. In October
1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met alone with their translators and an American official who took
notes -- the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished. The result,
in 1987, was the first and still only treaty abolishing an entire category of such weapons, the exceedingly dangerous intermediate-range
ones. (This is the historic treaty Trump has said he may abrogate.)
And yet, congressional zealots are now threatening to subpoena the American translator who was present during Trump's meetings
with Putin. If this recklessness prevails, it will be the end of the nuclear-superpower summit diplomacy that has helped to keep
America and the world safe from catastrophic war for nearly 70 years -- and as a new, more perilous nuclear arms race between the
two countries is unfolding. It will amply confirm a thesis set out in my book
War with Russia? -- that anti-Trump
Russiagate allegations have become the gravest threat to our security.
The following correction and clarification were made to the original version of this article on January 17: Reagan and Gorbachev
met privately with translators during their summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, not February, and Reagan was also accompanied
by an American official who took notes. And it would be more precise to say that the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed
in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU and author of the new book
War with Russia? From Putin and
Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate . This commentary is based on the most recent of his weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War with the host of the John Batchelor radio show. (The podcast is
here . Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com . )
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment
is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts,
deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
The books does not answer the key question: if it was not Russian influence, who of forign
powers tried to influence the election: GB, Israel, Saudi, or all three. We have solid evidence
of interference of British intelligence services into the election. Which means May government
Also important to understand that FBI from the very beginning was apolitical tool. Nothing
This dirty political witch hunt has one major goal to cement the cracks in neoliberal society
that appear after 2008 Financial crash. This attempt failed and Pateigenosse Mueller is unable to
change that. Confidence in the ruling neoliberal oligarchy collapsed and problem with the
inequality laid now bare.
My interest in this book occurred by chance. Over the past couple years reading news stories
on sites like Yahoo News I sensed a very overt stance against President Trump. It appeared
very obvious to me, but I wanted some confirmation whether these views may have validity, or
perhaps not. So I started to investigate other opinions via some of the conservative talk
radio shows. Up until this time, I rarely listened to them. One was the Sean Hannity Show and
Gregg Jarrett was sitting in for Sean on one of the shows. He mentioned his book and I
thought it sounded interesting. My basic assumption even prior to reading this book was I
never felt there was any illegal Trump/Russian collusion in our recent election. I couldn't
see how it would ever be done in such a way that would actually affect the voting outcome
(other than if it were some kind of ballot box type fraud). So I had doubts about all the
related investigations. When this book was mentioned I figured it would offer some factual
information to help me understand the investigations better. It did accomplish that. And much
One of the major items about this book is that it is well researched and documented. This
made me feel somewhat comfortable about its content. There is so much misinformation making
its rounds today that knowing what is truthful and what isn't can become a real guessing
game. I could even ask 'Did Mr. Jarrett fabricate his sources'? At this point I will go on
faith that they are real.
Based on that assumption, he presents a very hard case about the Russian collusion
investigation as not being quite what the U.S.A. people are being led to believe by the media
outlets. So much so, I hope this book could be a catalyst for other investigations (assuming
that isn't already being planned). As summarized in this book, a major point is about federal
investigative departments having integrity in performing their duties, and doing so legally
and without prejudice or political partisanship. This book does raise some real concerns.
The author states at the end of the book "The people who should read this book, probably
won't". Unfortunately he is probably correct. As a country we seem so divided today
politically. It is my impression that anti-Trumpers will probably not want to acknowledge any
conflicting thoughts or facts to their beliefs. But this book could be a great exercise in
broadening one's knowledge regarding the investigations on Trump. It would show a different
viewpoint than that being touted by much of the media, and has the facts backing it up. At
the very least, it can provide some food for thought.
As Gregg Jarrett states in the Epilogue of this book, "The people who should read this book,
probably won't... they are intellectually dishonest in believing that the president must have
committed some crime in connection with Russia...There was never any plausible evidence that
Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency... Comey's scheme to
trigger the appointment of his friend as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an
As many of these events unfolded I have watched closely and performed my own "tests of
reasonableness" from facts presented. Utilizing logic and common sense I often wondered if I
was missing something? What crystal ball would have predicted that Donald Trump would run for
the presidency? One example: The press told us he had been a political asset for many years
and had been exchanging Intel with the Russians...
Then I heard about this book, purchased it and began reading it... I could hardly put it
down... The information in it is astonishing! It is all to clear now...
Jarrett has researched, compiled and formatted an almost air-tight legal case (within this
book) for prosecuting these "weasels." The astonishing levels of corruption and crimes
committed by those in the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI are unprecedented. He has
compiled an extraordinary amount of source information to back up his many claims throughout
the book. I am totally perplexed that our so-called leaders in Congress are allowing this
abuse to go unpunished... baffling? This disgraceful abuse of power documented by Jarrett
will come back to haunt us! A well written expose by Mr. Jarrett!
Gregg Jarrett's research leaves NO DOUBT that drastic action needs to be taken to hold these
people- PRETENDING to represent the law- accountable & end their "assassination" tactics
on our tax dollar.
This is not Halloween, not a play. This is REALITY with our laws running amok!
And our Congress - our elected officials, supposedly servants of We, the People, - is not
How is this possible?
Incredibly well researched and well written book which explains methodically in an easy to
read style the undeniable deep seated bias against President Trump at the highest levels of
the Department of Justice and the FBI. They tried to first prevent him from being elected by
exonerating Hillary Clinton of a long list of crimes committed during her tenure as Secretary
of State and then smearing him with a politically motivated fake "Dossier". When that didn't
work, they have tried to undermine his presidency from the start with an equally politically
motivated Special Prosecutor investigating "Collusion with Russia" in an investigation which
had no crime to investigate from the start. A must read for all Americans.
This author writes with a very smooth, easy, but detailed style. The book brings in much law
for the reader to digest, but, somehow, does not get a reader tangled up in the weeds. As for
the thrust of the book: A detailed 'tick tock' of the day by day events that have taken
America to the point we are today on this entire question of Trump, Russia, and the 2016
This book really is vivid proof that the 'deep state' does emphatically exist. Not as a
structure or organization with secret meetings,rituals or handshakes. But as a mentality, or
common political/social view of government, stemming from the longevity of bureaucracy to
feel invulnerable to popular will because of their simple edict that 'we'll still be here
after you're long gone'. And from this, these bureaucrats build liaisons with favoring
political elites that lead to deep, hidden, obscure --shall we say 'deep state'-- actions to
pervert the popular will for the ends of a few.
This book vividly displays why bureaucrats (whose lifeblood is to promote more government) so
turn their collective hand to supporting Democrats, the party of government. Yates covering
for Comey and the blackmailing of Gen. Flynn, Comey leaking to a friend in Academia that
provokes the appointment of his (Comey's) close associate --indeed, his mentor-- Robert
Mueller. Senior bureaucrats (McCabe, Strzok) playing inside baseball to maneuver themselves
for promotion in the expected new (Democratic) administration that they so much support and
wish for. Indeed friendships with FISA judges to assure bogus warrants can be obtained
against political enemies.
Where money and power are traded as coin of the realm in a way that is so antiseptic and
hidden. Nobody says 'How much money will it take'; instead it's 'I can help you fund raise'.
Rod Blagojevich was foolish enough to call a bribe a bribe...well, he's in jail, but Strzok's
It just goes on and on................it's simple corruption!!! And the band plays
on......the human comedy continues........
Excellent detailed and researched book that simply amazes me. Lynch, Comey, Clinton, Stzrok,
Orr, Rosenstein, McCabe, Reid and Brennen all worked seamlessly to install Hillary and have a
backup plan B to lay the groundwork to impeach Trump in case she doesn't make it. All under
the oversight of Obama. Neat trick, but what follows is even more orchestrated: MEDIA
COMPLICITY! You can't pull this off unless you have the full cooperation willingly or
otherwise of: NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, MSNBC, and most of all CNN, the New York Times, and
Washington Post! Here's where the real story lies. The media and the Democrat party are
simpatico, joint at the brain and mouth and one other orifice. This is the real story that
Jarrett only pays passing attention to. Sequel maybe, I hope so. Jon Kuhl Papillion, NE &
This book is very thorough and completely exposes the Deep State. If there were any doubts
about the conspiracy to depose President Trump before reading this book, there certainly
aren't any afterwards. After reading the book, I am very disappointed and discouraged to find
that our government has such liars and criminals in the FBI, the DOJ, and the Congress. I
have completely lost any confidence I had in the U.S. government and will never believe in it
again, unless there is a complete house-cleaning in the FBI and the DOJ.
Jarrett pens a comprehensive review of the Deep State's inordinate fraud on our Constitution
-- perhaps the greatest attack on our constitutional republic in the history of our country.
He writes in clear and empathetic style. His narrative evolves in a coherent and logical
progression that details the conspirators' skullduggery in an "ABC" type of progression. He
cites exactly who violated the relevant federal statute and why and how it was violated.
Unfortunately, as of 30 September 2018 -- the date I'm preparing the review -- none of the
miscreants have been indicted even though the documentation of evidence is ponderous.
Gregg Jarrett's study -- and that is what this book is, a study -- covers two main aspects of
recent history. First and foremost it is an in-depth look at the tactics and forces arrayed
against President Trump. Intertwined with this comes by necessity a parallel look at Hillary
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, her presidential run, as well as a broader look at
the activities of the Clintons with the nearly full support of those same forces that are now
aligned against the presidency of Donald Trump. The nature of the often overlapping issues
and the personnel involved has resulted in a fair amount of repetition of key points. This
was not a lazy attempt to achieve a book-length manuscript, as Jarrett's original copy by his
own admission in the acknowledgments was a hefty 100,000 words before the publisher
encouraged him to trim things down.
It is unfortunate that this book will be dismissed by so many who are unwilling to
understand and accept that the pervasive high-level animosity against President Trump has
evolved into a direct and active threat against our country -- and this threat is compounded
by a complicit media that is eager to pounce. The rule of law has been twisted and contorted
if not completely abandoned. Trump is the primary target, but whether by design or
happenstance it is the U.S. Constitution that is being the most assaulted. The danger of this
cannot be overemphasized -- we are at a critical crossroads. Gregg Jarret understands this
and was motivated to bring this truth to light. He is no sycophant of President Trump. His
loyalty is to the rule of law and to our Constitution rather than to political agendas on
I withheld one star because a great opportunity was lost. This book will never appear in
classrooms, and it will likely be stocked in few law libraries. It most certainly should be,
and it needs to be read and studied. The flagrant abuses of power by the DOJ, the FBI, and
others need to be brought out into a bright light and the corruption purged. As a people we
need to get our head out of the sand and realize what has been going on behind closed doors
-- our future is most definitely at stake. The lost opportunity that I am alluding to comes
down to the expressed (albeit well deserved) disdain and disgust that Gregg Jarrett now has
towards those who are participating in this hoax that he has so thoroughly revealed. I fear
even the preface itself will turn away those who most need to read this book.
What will be perceived as bias before the facts are presented and developed will allow or
even cause those who need to read this book to close their minds, giving them the excuse they
want to dismiss the evidence. If strictly the evidence and history had alone been presented
with Jarrett's (again, well-deserved) animosity being held in check and edited out, then
perhaps this book could have become a classic for later generations to study assuming that we
survive these perilously subversive times. I did the math, and there are 771 supporting
references -- an average of 70 per chapter -- documenting Jarrett's research, plus 12
references even in the epilogue. Obviously, we are not talking about willfully blind opinion
with no basis in fact.
The antagonists who post their 1-star reviews with almost all of them having obviously
never read the book (Re. few verified purchases) reveal a dangerous willful ignorance that
they are happy to embrace. Their mindset should concern us all.
"As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party's Voters Are Becoming Far More
Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans" [Glenn Greenwald, T
he Intercept ].
'But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal.
The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support
withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support
withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent."
Those of you who followed my midterms worksheets will recall that the liberal Democrat
establishment packed the ballot with MILOs (candidates with Military, Intelligence, and Law
enforcement backgrounds, or Other things, like being a DA), preparing the way for further
militarization of the Party, and ultimately for war.
This is the typical level of repression that exist in Police State: any politician who deviates from the "Inner Party" (aka Deep
State) course is branded as Russian spy and "counterintelligence" dogs are send to sniff any dirty clothing that might exist to and
this politician career.
"... 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. ..."
"... "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy." ..."
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the
New York Times that US
law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior " in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director,
that "t hey began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016
campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed
with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper explains:
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect
of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as 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 criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials
said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation,
that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division handles national security
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction
from Russian government officials. " Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian collusion" narrative right as Trump is set
to test his Presidential authority over the border wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced
to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired
Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze!"
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike. After the rigged & botched Crooked
Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't
know anything (a lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and the way he handled
the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice Department).
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who is being totally protected by his best friend,
Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more)
by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good
relations with Russia again!
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all disgraced and/or fired and caught in
the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance
policy?" This is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary Clinton's email investigation during the
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York asks following the article, was the
New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI malfeasance?
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the New York
Times that US law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior "
in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, that "t hey began investigating
whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr.
Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into
him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of
such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped
prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as 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 criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one
investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews in recent weeks, because
if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia
investigation, that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s
counterintelligence division handles national security matters.
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned
whether agents overstepped in opening it ."
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was
secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. "
Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey
must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian
collusion" narrative right as Trump is set to test his Presidential authority over the border
wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the
FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an
investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike.
After the rigged & botched Crooked Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on
July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't know anything (a
lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and
the way he handled the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who
is being totally protected by his best friend, Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats -
leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more) by
Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any
other President. At the same time, & as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a
good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations with
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all
disgraced and/or fired and caught in the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to
do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance policy?" This
is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary
Clinton's email investigation during the election.
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York
asks following the article, was the New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
Did Krugman just issue a veiled warning to Pelosi, Schumer, and Clinton Democrats? Did he see
this as a teaching moment for them? Has he turned from unabashed megaphone for establishment
Democrats to an honest broker, willing to explain economics to Demcoratic Big Money
parasites? Could be... If so, this might be a turning point for Krugman from partisan hack to
As always, Robert Reich pulls fewer punches: "Do not ever underestimate the influence of
Wall Street Democrats, corporate Democrats, and the Democrats' biggest funders. I know. I've
In the 2018 midterms, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, big
business made more contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. The shift was particularly
noticeable on Wall Street. Not since 2008 have donors in the securities and investment
industry given a higher percentage to Democratic candidates and committees than to
The moneyed interests in the Democratic party are in favor of helping America's poor and
of reversing climate change – two positions that sharply distinguish them from the
moneyed interests in the Republican party.
There is no reason to think that mainstream liberals would not just go along with whatever
direction the liberal establishment takes. OTOH, there is a major difference in the context
between the rank and file of mainstream liberals and the actual liberal establishment itself.
Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections. They are concerned with
electability and the constraints of legislative process. There is nothing wrong with that. It
is the role of the rank and file.
However, AOC is correct. It is radicals that bring about all significant change.
Mainstream radical is an oxymoron. After radicals cause change then it is no longer radical,
but it becomes mainstream instead.
In contrast, the liberal establishment is also concerned with electability because that is
what they do for a living, either get elected or ride along on the coattails of the elected,
but they are elites and elitists not to be separated from the status quo economic
establishment without considerable consternation. However, the elitists' trepidation over
being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be greatly reduced by severe limits
on private campaign financing. Still, it would be a rare elected official that would rather
eat in a soup kitchen than a five-star restaurant both for the good food and for the good
company. In both regards though that depends upon what your definition of "good" is.
"Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections..." And they are precisely they
kind of "go-along to get along types" who let bad things happen...and then pretend to not
understand what went wrong...Vietnam, Iraq, GWOT, Glass-Steagall repeal, trade
liberalization/offshoring profits, banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy
down. The list goes on.
There are leaders, followers, and radicals. One can choose to be any one or two or those they
want, but no more than two. It is not very rewarding to be a radical from the back of the
line unless there is also a radical to follow at the front of the line. Leaders that are also
followers inherit the status quo and guard it like it was their own because it is. Radical
leaders rarely succeed, but often die young.
Trump is a bad example of a leader, but he follows his nose at least rather than just the
status quo. Trump has a nose for trouble and he cannot resist its stench any more than a
jackal or hyena can resist rotting carrion. Fortunate for Trump the US has a long history of
stockpiling trouble for future consumption that reaches all the way back to colonial times.
Trump likes to think that orange is the new black, but the old black, brown, and red are
still around and neither yellow nor orange can take their place.
The majority of people are just plain old followers. If people think that there is chaos
in the world already, just imagine what it would be like if most people were not just plain
old followers. The status quo always has the advantage of the natural force of inertia.
"...banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy down. The list goes on."
Because you believe in government as done by Putin, Maduro, Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc:
jail, torture, kill enemies by the people in power being the law.
You reject the US Constitution where voters are allowed to elect Republicans who legalize
fraud and theft by deception based on voters wanting the free lunch of easy credit requiring
bankers have no liability for the bad loans from easy credit. You reject the US Constitution
prohibition on retroactive laws criminalizzing legal actions.
Only if you were leading protests in the 90s in opposition to laws making credit easy for
below $80,000 workers whether buying houses or trucks/SUV.
Only if you were picketing real estate agents and car dealers from 2001 to 2005 to keep
out customers, you were not doing enough to stop easy credit.
The GOP was only dellivering what voters wanted, stuff they could not afford paid for by
workers saving for their retirement.
Elections have consequences.
The elections from 1994 to 2004 were votes for free lunch economics. The GOP promised and
delivered free lunch economic policies.
In 2005, voters on the margins realized tanstaafl, and in 2006 elected Pelosi to power,
and Pelosi, representing California knows economies are zero sum, so she increased costs to
increase general welfare. One of the costs was reccognizing the costs, and benefits, of the
In 2008, she did not try to criminalize past action, and when she could not get the votes
to punish the bankers who bankrupted the institutions they ran by prohibiting bonuses in the
future,, she insread delivered the best deal possible for the US Constitutional general
I think Bernie wanted all voters who voted GOP to lose their jobs, or maybe he simply
believes in free lunch economist claims that welfare payments in Ohio and Michigan are higher
than union worker incomes.
Maybe he thinks bankruptcy court nationalize businesses, not liquidate them.
Or maybe he figured the solution was a 21st Century Great Depression which would elect a
socialist instead of a capitalist FDR, and he would get to run all the automakers, all the
food industry, and employ all the workers deciding what they can buy?
I can never figure out how the economy would work if Bernie were running it. He talks
about Europe, but never advocates the cost of EU economy that is part of EU law: the VAT. All
EU members must have a VAT that is a significant cost to every person in the EU.
Free lunch economics is when you promise increased benefits with no costs, or lower
Free lunch Trump and free lunch Bernie differ only in their winners, but their losers are
always the same.
When progressives argue for unlimited increases in debt just like Reagan, they are
rejecting the pokicies of FDR, Keynes, the US when the general welfare increased most by
increasing assets faster than debt.
"'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train.
"elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing."
So, the wealthy liberal elites who pay no taxes by cleverly paying all revenue to workers
need to be punished because they pay too much to too many workers?
Warrren Buffett has never paid much in taxes even when tax rates on corporations were over
50% and individuals reached over 70%. Money paid to workers, directly or indirectly, was and
still is the number one tax dodge.
Unless you go to a sales tax aka VAT which taxes all revenue, expecially business income
paid to workers.
VAT is an income tax with zero tax dodges aka loopholes aka deductions.
""'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train."
In your view, its the poor who create high paying jobs?
It's wrong to listen to people who convince rich people to give their money to people
paying US workers to build factories, wind farms, solar farms battery factories,
transportation systems, vehicles, computer systems in the US?
Instead Democrats should listen to people who have never created long term paying jobs,
but only pay elites who run campaigns using mostly unpaid workers, or workers paid only a few
months every few years? Like Bernie does?
When it comes to how to run a "Green New Deal", I want the policy crafted by someone who
listens to Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and the CEOs of California energy corporations,
tech companies, who are commited to consuming more and more energy that requires no fossil
fuels. Listening to Home Depot and Walmart building managers and retail sales managers should
be a priority. All these guys both focus on paying more workers, and selling more to workers
AOC and Bernie seem to listen to the Lamperts who are destroying the value of companies
like Sears by "taxing" both the customers, workers, and owners, by giving money to people who
don't work to produce anything.
I make going to RealClearPolicy, Politics, etc a daily practice to see how bad
progressives are at selling their policies, making it easy for find all sorts of costs,
without any benefits to anyone.
The New Deal was not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. The New
Deal was about paying workers more.
In 1930, half the population still lived on farms. (They might work off the farm, but they
were farmworkers first.) The problem for farmers is Europe had recovered from the war and was
no longer sending gold to the US to secure loans to buy food, but instead repaying the loans
by shipping high value food to the US, wine, cheese, etc, and that meant too much food drove
prices down, which meant farmworkers earned less and less.
One of the first laws set minimum prices for food, enforced by destroying crops, or
government overpaying for food like milk, cheese, bread, which the government gave away to
the poor who could never buy this food. It was not about giving food away, but about paying
workers, the farmers, ranchers, etc. Giving the food to the poor who could not afford to buy
food was simply to avoid the attacks on FDR for destroying good food to drive up farmer pay.
Which was the truth.
FDR talked about creating a healthy workforce to make America great, then about building a
healthy soldier. Ike in the 50s and JFK in the 60s campaigned on creating healthy soldiers.
And smart, educated soldiers and workers.
The policies of liberals was about better workers, richer workers.
Conservatives since Reagan has been about cutting the costs of workers. Sold based on
consumers benefiting from lower cost workers, because consumees are never workers, workers
never consumers, because if workers equal consumers, economics must be zero sum.
By attracting the intense ire of the GOP, AOC activates the negative polarization of lib
pundits and makes them look for ways to defend left policy items they'd attack in any other
scenario. It's very effective at pushing the discourse forward.
"But the Democrats' moneyed interests don't want more powerful labor unions. They are not in
favor of stronger antitrust enforcement against large corporations."
So, you think beef at $10 plus per pound, salad greens at $5 plus per pound, a fast food
meal at $10 plus, is a winning issue for Democrats?
Or by powerful labor unions, you mean for only white male blue collar factory workers,
long haul white truckers, white construction workers?
Making all work pay enough to reach middle class status at the low end will not happen by
unions because many parts of the US, and workers, and jobs, will oppose unions. Instead,
labor laws and enforcement to lift wages and working conditions rapidly in conservative
regions are required.
Better to get the minimum wage in Indiana and Kansas to $10 than in California to $15.
More important to get farm workers fully covered by Federal law like factory workers, with
exemptions only for farmer family members.
Raising incomes in low living cost regions will not raise prices much nationally, but
increase living standards among the most disadvantaged who feel "left behind".
Automatic increases annually of 10% for 7 years, then indexed by cpi.
Constantly emphasizing this minimum is way below what the low wage is in SF, NYC, LA, but
the goods produced will be bought and thus wages paid mostly by high income liberal elites.
Conservatives sticking it to liberals!
"In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra
hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income
of everyone else doesn't change, does it? Ah, but it does – because he pays taxes on
that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit
harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort – and conversely the cost of
their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay."
This is not right. Heck, it's not even wrong.
Say the $1000 is for a surgery. The social benefit is the tax they pay on it? The surgery
itself is irrelevant?
Krugman confuses the flow of money, which supports and correlates with production, with
the actual production, the real "social benefit".
If you invent a widget that everyone on earth is willing to pay $1 over cost to get,
congratulations, you just earned $7 billion.
Now, does that mean you get to consume $7 billion worth of stuff other people produce? I
Or, does it mean you get to trap the world in $7 billion of debt servitude from which it
is impossible for them to escape, because you are hoarding, and then charging interest on,
the $7 billion they need to pay back their debts.
The key is to understand that money is created via debt. Money has value because people
with debt need to get it to repay their debts.
If we all decide BitCoin is worthless, then BitCoin is worthless. It has no fundamental
If we all decide money is worthless, then a bunch of people with debt will gladly take it
off our hands so that they can repay their debt. Heck, they may even trade us stuff to get
the debt... which is why money is NOT worthless.
"If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?"
Obviously, good. Which is what I say in my post.
"Money is merely work in the past or future."
Money is other peoples' debt. They have borrowed money into existence and then spent it
into the economy, AND they have pledged to do work in the future, to get the money back so
they can repay the debt.
That "doing work in the future to get the money back" is only possible if the people with
the money actually spend it back into the economy.
The problem is that the people in debt also agreed to pay interest, and the people with
the money want to keep collecting the interest... so keep holding the money... making it
absolutely impossible for those with debt to pay it back.
I'm saying is that there is obligation on both sides. There is obligation on the part of
people with debt to produce goods and services and sell them for money to repay their debts,
AND for that to be possible, there is obligation on those with money to actually spend the
Contrary to CONservative opinion, money is not created by work, it is earned by selling,
and that means for the economy to function, there has to be spending.
We need a tax code with very high top rates, but deductions for spending and capital
investing... not to take from the rich, but rather to force them to spend and invest to get
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
"... A possible scenario then would be that, some time in late April or early May, the kind of surveillance on Assange and figures known to be associated with him which we can be reasonably confident was being carried out both by GCHQ and MI6 alerted people to the fact that there had been a leak of material from the DNC. ..."
"... The accident of Cameron's – characteristically foolish – statement and the Papadopoulos interview could then have led on to his meeting with Downer being set up, at almost exactly the time when 'CrowdStrike' was beginning to work on the DNC servers. ..."
"... Having gone down that route, the possibility of Seth Rich talking obviously became acutely dangerous to all kinds of people. ..."
"... If Seth had made no attempt to contact Wikileaks - and if the FBI didn't look at his laptop because "we don't investigate murders", then why does the NSA have 32 pages of secret/top secret memos on him? ..."
"... If Seth was the real leaker, he was in a position to blow apart the Guccifer 2.0 scam which was the centerpiece of the "Russia interfered" hoax. ..."
"... Also, I suspect that Shawn Lucas may have been one of the friends of Seth who - according to Sy Hersh's account - had access to Seth's dropbox. So that might explain his very mysterious death - a drug overdose involving multiple drugs in someone never known to use drugs. ..."
"... What is clear is that, both from a cybersecurity and other perspectives – the Awan family saga being an obvious instance, and the networks in which Huma Abedin is involved perhaps another – the whole Democratic apparatus in which Hillary was a central figure was as leaky as an old sieve. ..."
"... When the ex-GCHQ 'twerp' Matt Tait, then supposedly running a consultancy, 'Capital Alpha Security', which only ever filed 'accounts for a dormant company', and has now been compulsorily wound up, immediately produced evidence backing up the incoherent claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', it was clear that we were dealing with an amateurish cover-up. ..."
"... The notion that the name and patronymic 'Felix Dzerzhinsky' is likely to have been used by the Main Directorate, previously known as the GRU, could only have been dreamed up by people who are totally ignorant of the history of the relations between the General Staff and the 'Cheka' in the early Soviet period, or, at least, are relying on the ignorance of others. ..."
"... The next memorandum in the sequence, which is undated, introduces Paul Manafort and Carter Page into the 'rogues' gallery', and contains some very interesting observations about the cyber side. So 'Source E' – described as an 'ethnic Russian close associate' of Trump – supposedly explains that the 'intelligence network' being used against Hillary Clinton comprises three elements ..."
"... All this stinks of a hastily-organised cover-up operation, set in motion after it became clear that highly compromising material was going to appear on 'WikiLeaks' – but which moved into higher gear after the murder of Rich. ..."
"... As was very evident at the time from, for example, comments on the 'MailOnline' site, very many people who disliked Hillary immediately took for granted that Rich had been 'Arkancided', so his death then became further evidence of her innate villainy, and also confirmation that he was, in fact, the source of the 'WikiLeaks' material. ..."
"... How's this for a motive? Imran Awan ran the DNC servers. When it was discovered in May/June that the emails had been downloaded, a search was launched and suspicion fell on Seth. Worried that the Pakistani penetration of the DNC and the Congress might be uncovered, Seth was silenced. I offer this as one possible theory. ..."
"... I think it is very much a possible theory. And indeed, reading what Mark McCarty and Eric Newhill wrote, I think I may have greatly underestimated the extent to which people on Hillary's side could have thought Seth Rich too dangerous to be left alive ..."
"... One point raised by Eric's comments. It seems to me quite likely that the alarm was in fact raised by monitoring what came in to WikiLeaks, rather than what went out of the DNC. If this was so, however, it would be less likely that the monitoring was done directly by the CIA/NSA. It would be much more likely that this was in the first instance primarily an MI6/GCHQ function. ..."
"... If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up after another. ..."
"... The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.' ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
The request related to four categories of material. The first had to do with
communications between Rich and a variety of people. It is interesting that the names of
three figures with whom it is not suggested he communicated are Included, the precise
phrasing being 'David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson are the attorneys who
represented Hillary Clinton.'
Apparently Clevenger has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to get the trio investigated
in relation to the deletion of e-mails from the secret server.
The second category relates to material concerning phone calls involving Rich on the day
he died and the previous day, the third to possible financial transactions involved him and
an interesting range of people.
The fourth category covers correspondence involving people in or involved with
The NSA response refers to an earlier reply dated 7 November 2017 in relation to the first
three categories. So far I cannot trace this, but I would assume that this refused access to
the material – if it did not there would clearly be rather more than fifteen documents
with 32 pages. So these presumably all relate to communications involving Congress.
Another important thread in all this relates to the 10 May 2016 meeting between George
Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer. Information has been trickling out about what the former
said in his interview with members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees on
Thursday. And the episode is dealt with in a book by the 'Washington Post' reporter Greg
Miller, released earlier this month.
The sequence appears to have been that Papodopoulos was quoted in an interview in the
'Times' on 4 May 2016 saying that our then Prime Minister, David Cameron, should apologise
for calling Trump 'divisive, stupid and wrong'. Two days later, an Australian embassy
official who knew him suggested that Papadopoulos meet Downer.
According to the version restated by Miller, the FIB 'Crossfire Hurricane' investigation
opened on 31 July, following the 'WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails on 22 July –
with supposedly a belated communication from Downer about the Papadopoulos meeting being an
important trigger. If you work for the 'Washington Post', you will of course take all this on
trust. Serious journalists would not.
While the complications of the role of the mysterious Maltese Joseph Mifsud still do not
seem adequately ironed out, the suggestion that he told Papadopoulos that he had learned that
the Russian government had 'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands' of her emails may
well be true. Moreover, it would not necessarily be part of an entrapment operation.
It is perfectly possible that Mifsud did actually retail what he had heard in Moscow, and
while this could have been inaccurate gossip, it could also have been accurate.
As I have said before, if there was anything I would find more surprising than the notion
that the DNC material came to 'WikiLeaks' from the Russians, it would be that these could not
penetrate the obviously appallingly lax security not just of Clinton's server but of the
whole Democratic network. (People who could hire the Awan clan are obviously either totally
inept at security or totally unconcerned about it.)
At that point, one comes up against the question of how much substance there is in the
claims by Yaacov Apelbaum about the central role in 'Russiagate' of the Hakluyt/Holdingham
group, with which Downer was certainly involved.
A possible scenario then would be that, some time in late April or early May, the kind of
surveillance on Assange and figures known to be associated with him which we can be
reasonably confident was being carried out both by GCHQ and MI6 alerted people to the fact
that there had been a leak of material from the DNC.
The accident of Cameron's – characteristically foolish – statement and the
Papadopoulos interview could then have led on to his meeting with Downer being set up, at
almost exactly the time when 'CrowdStrike' was beginning to work on the DNC servers.
What could have been a piece of accurate gossip out of Russia – although of course
it could have been inaccurate gossip or indeed planted disinformation – then encouraged
the notion that the leak could be treated as a hack.
Having gone down that route, the possibility of Seth Rich talking obviously became acutely
dangerous to all kinds of people.
An accurate account of what was happened was finally passed to 'Fox News', sourced in
substantial measure from figures involved with Assange, but the company 'chickened out' in
the face of pressure. The Malia Zimmerman story, incidentally, can be viewed at
If the FOIA request is authentic then it would be in the FOIA logs of the agency which are
themselves FOIA-able (in general anyway).
I would speculate that the material might show that they rooted around for stuff like
this, due to the media attention, and thus, some records exist about the idea.
Also re the metadata timing, while the idea of fast copies is reasonable, it is also
possible to write a small script which would calculate a fresh set of datetime values at a
different rate than the original, wouldn't this be less than 30 lines? (like they could have
simply overwritten the metadata date values, from slower copying to an illusion of faster
Excellent summary. How did the author get the info on NSA's response to the FOIA request? -
cant find it otherwise online.
If Seth had made no attempt to contact Wikileaks - and if the FBI didn't look at his
laptop because "we don't investigate murders", then why does the NSA have 32 pages of
secret/top secret memos on him?
This article should have cited the Sy Hersh phone tape - Sy, via Butowsky, is the evident
source of the Fox report:
With the leaks already out, if they wanted to make an example, they could have made his life
hell and heaped blame on him for them losing the election, they could have made an example
out of him without taking needless risks and without leaving anything to ambiguity (so that
it would unquestionably deter others from doing the same).
So, even if his death wasn't just him accidentally getting shot twice in the torso during
a struggle following a bungled robbery attempt in which nothing was stolen... revenge still
would have been a questionable motive.
I'd say more but it's probably best for the sake of self-preservation and to prevent
opponents from strawman attacks if I don't. Good luck figuring out who could have had a
I don't think that revenge had anything to do with it. If Seth was the real leaker, he was in
a position to blow apart the Guccifer 2.0 scam which was the centerpiece of the "Russia
interfered" hoax. The conspirators would be much more secure with him out of the way. Also, I
suspect that Shawn Lucas may have been one of the friends of Seth who - according to Sy
Hersh's account - had access to Seth's dropbox. So that might explain his very mysterious
death - a drug overdose involving multiple drugs in someone never known to use drugs.
On the question of who might have had a motive to kill Seth Rich, some aspects of the
background are worth bearing in mind.
It is very clear that Hillary Clinton divides opinion, very sharply – actually, in
Britain almost as much as in the United States. On the one hand, I have found even people
whose judgement I would once have trusted quite extraordinarily reluctant to accept that
there was anything reprehensible about her glaring security breaches, let alone about
anything else she has done.
On the other, there are many people who loathe her and her husband so much that they will
believe any mud that is slung at the pair.
What is clear is that, both from a cybersecurity and other perspectives – the Awan
family saga being an obvious instance, and the networks in which Huma Abedin is involved
perhaps another – the whole Democratic apparatus in which Hillary was a central figure
was as leaky as an old sieve.
In such a situation, if I was for example Vladimir Putin, and none of my intelligence
services had been able to supply me with something close to a complete set of Hillary
Clinton's emails, I would have wanted to know why.
But that, of course, emphatically does not mean that the Russians are a likely conduit for
material to have reached Assange. And it also means that, if by any chance Putin and General
Gerasimov, who has overall responsibility for the Main Directorate of the General Staff, had
decided they wanted the material made public, they could have been expected to look for
When the ex-GCHQ 'twerp' Matt Tait, then supposedly running a consultancy, 'Capital Alpha
Security', which only ever filed 'accounts for a dormant company', and has now been
compulsorily wound up, immediately produced evidence backing up the incoherent claims by
Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', it was clear that we were dealing with an amateurish
The notion that the name and patronymic 'Felix Dzerzhinsky' is likely to have been used by
the Main Directorate, previously known as the GRU, could only have been dreamed up by people
who are totally ignorant of the history of the relations between the General Staff and the
'Cheka' in the early Soviet period, or, at least, are relying on the ignorance of others.
In addition to this, we have the fact that the initial memoranda in the dossier published
by 'BuzzFeed' and – supposedly – authored by Christopher Steele, are both a mess,
and contradict the version put out by Alperovitch and Tait. The Ellen Nakashima piece was on
14 June, the first memorandum, which contained the 'golden showers' claim, is dated 20 June
– which of course may not be accurate.
There is then a pause, until the first treatment of Russian cyber operations, in a
memorandum dated '26 July 2015.' This is clearly a mistype for 2016, so that the date, if
correct, is more than a fortnight after the murder of Rich, which was on 10 July. This
memorandum makes no mention of the GRU, claims that 'FSB leads on cyber', and also that there
had been 'limited success in attacking top foreign targets'.
The next memorandum in the sequence, which is undated, introduces Paul Manafort and Carter
Page into the 'rogues' gallery', and contains some very interesting observations about the
cyber side. So 'Source E' – described as an 'ethnic Russian close associate' of Trump
– supposedly explains that the 'intelligence network' being used against Hillary
Clinton comprises three elements:
'Firstly there were agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party structure itself;
secondly Russian emigre and associated offensive cyber operators based in the US; and
thirdly, state-sponsored cyber operatives working in Russia.'
The fourth memorandum, dated 19 July, which if accurate means it would have had to have
been written before the second, then makes the accusations about the secret meetings between
Page and Sechin.
All this stinks of a hastily-organised cover-up operation, set in motion after it became
clear that highly compromising material was going to appear on 'WikiLeaks' – but which
moved into higher gear after the murder of Rich.
The reference to 'agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party itself' reads as though
it might well have been intended to provide a basis for a 'fall-back' position, if either the
problems of the 'hacking' story became too glaring, or it became impossible to prevent more
information coming out about the role of Rich in supplying material to WikiLeaks.
Also perhaps relevant is the fact that the initial meeting between Carter Page and Stefan
Halper occurred at a symposium in Cambridge, UK, entitled '2016's Race to Change the World',
which opened on 11 July, the day after Rich's death – and was also attended by Sir
All this adds to the strong impression that panic which may well have been materially
increased by Rich's murder could have been one of the reasons why the 'cover-up' took off
into a kind of stratosphere of absurdity in the period that followed it.
Reverting to the question you raise of possible motives for the murder, precisely what the
panic suggests is indeed that it is not obvious that anyone in the Democratic Party apparatus
had any incentive to assassinate Rich.
As was very evident at the time from, for example, comments on the 'MailOnline' site, very
many people who disliked Hillary immediately took for granted that Rich had been
'Arkancided', so his death then became further evidence of her innate villainy, and also
confirmation that he was, in fact, the source of the 'WikiLeaks' material.
However, precisely because of the sieve-like nature of the Democratic Party apparatus, a
situation had been created where there were actually a wide variety of people, in a wide
variety of places, who could have been taking an intense interest in the kind of material
which appeared on 'WikiLeaks.'
Such people might have been able, through all kinds of routes, to find out a good deal
both about what had been leaked, how and why, and what might be leaked in the future.
While I agree that revenge is not the most obvious motive, there are two qualifications.
As we have seen with MBS, people can badly misjudge the impact of their actions, which
becomes more relevant if one starts casting the net wider in looking for possible suspects.
Also, preventing further disclosures could conceivably have been a motive.
Equally, however, it is not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that someone who was
well aware of the conclusions people would draw could have seen having Rich murdered as a way
of striking at Hillary.
A regrettable consequence of the way in which it has been possible to use atrocity to
shape 'narratives', which has been facilitated by the increasingly patent disinterest of the
mainstream media in trying to get at the truth, is that there are very many players who, for
diverse reasons, could have seen their interests furthered by an assassination of this
How's this for a motive? Imran Awan ran the DNC servers. When it was discovered in May/June
that the emails had been downloaded, a search was launched and suspicion fell on Seth.
Worried that the Pakistani penetration of the DNC and the Congress might be uncovered, Seth
was silenced. I offer this as one possible theory.
I think it is very much a possible theory. And indeed, reading what Mark McCarty and Eric
Newhill wrote, I think I may have greatly underestimated the extent to which people on
Hillary's side could have thought Seth Rich too dangerous to be left alive.
And I also may not have have given adequate weight to the possibility that a not
particularly unnatural fear could have overridden the patent dangers involved in following
what I should perhaps have seen as an obvious logic.
One point raised by Eric's comments. It seems to me quite likely that the alarm was in
fact raised by monitoring what came in to WikiLeaks, rather than what went out of the DNC. If
this was so, however, it would be less likely that the monitoring was done directly by the
CIA/NSA. It would be much more likely that this was in the first instance primarily an
It may or may not be relevant here that Craig Murray has given a lot of people a lot of
grief – not least, in exposing the way that 'loops of lies' about 'SIGINT' were used in
the attempt to use the 'false flag' at Ghouta to inveige you and us into another disastrous
intervention in the Middle East.
Be that as it may, it seems to me a reasonable hypothesis that an enormous amount of
effort – including both 'HUMINT' and 'SIGINT' – has been deployed by British
intelligence agencies to ensure that all channels by which information could pass to and from
Assange are monitored.
Of particular interest could have been the kind of covert means of organising payments
which may have been used to transfer money to Seth Rich and his brother.
One might then be some way towards a better explanation of some of the absurd
incoherencies in the stories told by and about 'CrowdStrike', which struck a lot of us quite
It is perfectly possible that 7 May is the actual date on which the company was called in.
However, this would not have been because a problem with the DNC computer systems had been
identified by that organisation – but because a receipt of information by 'WikiLeaks'
had been identified, and probably by the British.
At that point, it is perfectly possible that Alperovitch et al identified many 'hacks'
into the servers, some of which could indeed have been by organisations and individuals which
could perfectly possibly be linked to the Russians (but with the fact not being palpable,
because these would have looked for 'plausible deniability.')
Quite rapidly, the 'real' investigation, of which that by 'CrowdStrike' could have been a
part, but only part, would have identified Rich. But this would only have happened in time
for him to stop sending material originating later than 25 May. The search for a 'cover
story' would have begun at some time during this period.
The first stage in this would have involved the instruction to leave all laptops in the
office on 10 June. Thereafter, the attempts to create a 'cover story' developed rather
It would then becomes unsurprising that a former GCHQ person – Matt Tait –
should have played an important role, but also that the integration of the different parts of
the story was, to put it mildly, imperfect.
Part of this, however, is also likely to have had to do with the fact that both Glenn
Simpson and Christopher Steele are, quite patently, incompetent.
Unfortunately, I was 'away from base', celebrating a birthday with old friends, with
limited internet access, when the Colonel informed us that he had used 'Our Man in Havana' as
a teaching aid.
But it has become clear to me that an enormous amount of damage has resulted from the fact
that MSM journalists have read too much of the productions of David John Moore Cornwell (aka
John Le Carré), and not enough Graham Greene.
I am still trying to think this through, but another Graham Greene novel – 'The
Quiet American', of which the films are unfortunately awful, by contrast with that of 'Our
Man in Havana' – comes into the picture.
A key point about this is that 'tails wag dogs.'
So, having been persuaded that I had underestimated the likelihood of people in the
Hillary camp deciding that they had no realistic option but to remove Seth Rich from the
picture, it also occurs to me that a corollary of your suggestion is that a lot of other
people – among them, people involved with the Awans not in the United States –
might have thought that they had an overriding interest in so doing.
Moreover, they could realistically have calculated that – as with Alden Pyle when
General Thé escalates his 'false flags' – those who had thought they were in
control would then have had no realistic option but to cover up.
To digress, it seems to me likely that this is the premise on which MBS has operated
– and also, that a lot of people have given him every reason to think his confidence
However, sometimes, when the 'tails' have been able to wag the 'dogs' for a very long
time, it goes to their head.
After contemplating the likely intelligence and propaganda efforts of HMG over the last 15
years or so I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which
events in places like Syria would seem to have little to do with the welfare of Britain. Why?
I suppose that the same question can be asked for the US and I have. In re "Our man in
Havana" I think there are many issues raised in the work that apply directly to the trade of
The question why? is a very interesting but also very dispiriting one, but also one which
it is quite hard to get one's head round. I hope to have something more coherent to say about
Among many reasons, however, there has been a kind of intellectual disintegration.
If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be
entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving
ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up
The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot
Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street
memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the
intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Subsequently, of course, he set about colluding in the process. And, sixteen years later,
Dearlove is still at it, with 'Russiagate' – and the product being actually accepted
much more uncritically by the MSM than it was then.
And that is one of the problems – nobody any longer pays any penalty for failure, or
indeed feels any sense of shame about it..
There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without
success) who wrote a sunny book saying Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring
light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with Blair and his
henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal
As the Colonel eloquently asks:
"I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events
in places like Syria would seem to have little todo with the welfare of Britain. Why?"
I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the
early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated
backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened in narcissism,
adept at networking and self-promotion.
They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their
fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of
catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies. Our economic
power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief
amongst them Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE
games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though there's no tomorrow. It most
ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome.
(I don't include the Maurice Cowling-ites in this fandango because they strike me as more
Little Englanders. Though Peterhouse is of course, shamefully, the HQ of the Henry Jackson
How did the DNC determine that Seth Rich did the download? They killed him on mere suspicion
that he could have been the insider stealing data? That seems like an extreme response
carried out on mere suspicion. The Awan/Pakistan connection was eventually revealed and it
went nowhere; basically fizzled out in the media. On the other hand, if one of our agencies
actually knew it was Rich passing info to Wikileaks via a spying program, and that Rich, as a
Sanders supporter, was doing so because he harbored deep animosity toward the Clinton
campaign and the DNC, then Rich would have to be silenced. This theory would implicate
members of the deep state. Perhaps, that is too far fetched or disturbing to consider?
Can you please clarify one point. You say Guccifer 2.0's DNC emails released in mid June,
2016 contain "meta data" and then that Binney analyzed "data" from an intrusion on July 5,
2016. Clearly Binney couldn't have analyzed Guccifer 2.0's emails meta data (inconsistent
timing) ... and could it be that Guccifer's hack was performed at the slower rate expected
over the internet? Thanks
But he went back and analyzed the docs released on 15 June as well. Please focus on the
central point--the FBI claims that Guccifer 2.0 is a GRU front but the meta data on the
documents don't support the claim that they were obtained via an internet hack.
When I turn something I am writing into a non sequitur, or worse reverse its meaning, I call
it a f*ck up (linguistically), correct it and thank anyone who cared enough to take the time
to read me in the first place and to lend me a hand. What I try not to do is to hide behind a
misapplied grammatical device. Know what I mean buttercup... ?
The NSA's FOIA response that they have traffic involving Rich and Assange reinforces both
Assange's assertion and Binney's analysis that the DNC was not hacked, the data was
downloaded. Assange's uncategorical denial that the Ruskies did it is important. It deserves
to remain unambiguous and not to be subject to uncontrolled ellipsisical seizure.
Guccifer 2.0 seemed pretty earnest. As yet we don't have much of a clue who he was working
CIApedia story is a complete fabrication. And there might be connection between Seth murder and Avan brothers.
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange ..."
"... While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Is it really plausible that the perps would kill one person, fail to get anything of value from the homicide, then say "Oh shucks, that didn't work, won't do that again."? ..."
"... Yet there is no discussion of this of which I am aware, and the Wikipedia editors controlling the Wikipedia page for the murder of Seth Rich absolutely prohibit discussion, even on their "Talk Page" of such questions. E.g., their deletion of the question I asked here, under the heading "Why the "conspiracy theory" pejorative?" (which resulted in not only being deleted but a "Sanction" against me for daring to ask the question). ..."
"... CIA/NSA is already watching wikileaks due to Manning, etc) and "sees' that Rich has passed files. ..."
"... Intel filters up to Obama, Brennan, NSA people, Clinton and others that Rich has passed info to Wikileaks and then wikileaks announces and publishes the material. ..."
"... The DNC + Obama and other leftist deep staters concoct the Russian hacking meme to distract from the content of the material as well as to begin discredit Trump (and perhaps even develop a means of deposing him should he actually be elected). ..."
"... There is a connection between Seth and the Pakistani guy who had free rein with a lot of dem congresspeople's computers!!! His protector, Lil Debbie WS!!! There is a Podesta email where he states something to the effect that the person be taught a lesson as an example, guilty or not! ..."
If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have
had proof of such activity. In fact, the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not
do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign from spinning up to
pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and
Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for
example, came under withering fire after it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth
Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange at Wikileaks. The
family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that
suit subsequently was dismissed.
Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that
confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request
for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange.
While the content of these
documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped
boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in
the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.
There is a local angle to the Seth Rich murder story I have not seen discussed. Consider:
But the circumstances and facts surrounding the murder were strange.
Seth was shot in the back. Nothing was taken from his body -- not his
watch, not his wallet and not his credit cards.
The story promulgated by the MSM and Wikipedia is that the Washington DC MPD believe the
crime was a botched robbery.
But attempted robberies are not normally a unique event.
If it was a botched robbery, it seems almost certain that the perpetrator(s) would, having
failed in this attempt, try again to execute a robbery.
And use the same MO (modus operandi).
But I have seen no reports of other such homicide/robbery combinations.
If this was truly a unique event, how would that be possible? Is it really plausible that the perps would kill one person, fail to get anything of value
from the homicide, then say "Oh shucks, that didn't work, won't do that again."?
There certainly are reports of serial robberies in Washington.
Very hard to believe this is an exception.
As a Sanders supporter, Rich was appalled by how the
DNC screwed Sanders (and maybe some other things he learned also contributed to his decision
to engage in espionage against the DNC)
Rich decides to expose DNC corruption.
downloads the files locally and then passes them to wikileaks.
CIA/NSA is already watching wikileaks due to Manning, etc) and "sees' that Rich has passed files.
Intel filters up to
Obama, Brennan, NSA people, Clinton and others that Rich has passed info to Wikileaks and
then wikileaks announces and publishes the material.
The DNC + Obama and other leftist
deep staters concoct the Russian hacking meme to distract from the content of the material as
well as to begin discredit Trump (and perhaps even develop a means of deposing him should he
actually be elected).
Rich is the wild card. He could confess that he did it all by
himself - and he could create a spectacle by explaining why.
8. They kill Rich to remove the
only serious threat to their nefarious plot....?
"Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that
confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA
request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange."
There is a connection between Seth and the Pakistani guy who had free rein with a lot of dem
congresspeople's computers!!! His protector, Lil Debbie WS!!! There is a Podesta email where he states something to the effect that the person be taught
a lesson as an example, guilty or not!
"... At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like. ..."
"... I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum, however bloody and expensive. ..."
"... Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud. ..."
At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very
highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress
and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like.
It's too bad it is forbidden to examine this phenomena as one part of the matrix of power
and lies leading the US into conflict with Russia, no?
I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor
primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think
they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum,
however bloody and expensive.
Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud.
Conclusion regarding IP address data: What we're seeing in this IP data is a wide
range of countries and hosting providers. 15% of the IP addresses are Tor exit nodes. These
exit nodes are used by anyone who wants to be anonymous online, including malicious
Overall Conclusion: The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an
attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with
Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15%
of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent
relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any
Interesting, too, that the Dark State appears to be sending out talking points this week to
the effect that the alleged hacking of the DNC is an "act of war." IfI'm not mistaken, the US
recently revised war policy to include cyber attacks, whether they actually happened or not,
as being the same as a kinetic attack. Looks to me like we are seeing the beginning of a
long-term pysop/PR campaign to build support for a "preemptive" strike against Russia and
China that would, presumably, include nukes.
Politically Obama was a "despicable coward", or worse, a marionette.
"... A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public policy courses. ..."
"... Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement, SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress. ..."
"... And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance. ..."
"... He had a mandate for change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. ..."
"... People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do. ..."
"... The citizens of this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities than they did. ..."
"Democratic left playing a long game to get 'Medicare for All'" [Bloomberg Law]. "'We don't have the support that we need,'
said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who will co-chair the Progressive Caucus. She said that she'd favor modest expansions
of Medicare or Medicaid eligibility as a step toward Medicare for All. 'I am a big bold thinker; I'm also a good practical
strategist,' Jayapal said.
'It's why the Medicare for All Caucus was started, because we want to get information to our members so people feel
comfortable talking about the attacks we know are going to come.'" • So many Democrat McClellans; so few Democrat Grants.
"Progressives set to push their agenda in Congress and on the campaign trail. The GOP can't wait." [NBC]. "While the party
has moved left on health care, many Democrats seem more comfortable offering an option to buy into Medicare or a similar public
plan rather than creating one single-payer plan that replaces private insurance and covers everyone. Progressives, led by Rep.
Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and her Medicare For All PAC, plan to whip up support for the maximalist version and advance
legislation in 2019." • The "maximalist version" is exactly what Jayapal herself, quoted by Bloomberg, says she will not seek.
Not sure whether this is Democrat cynicism, sloppy Democrat messaging, or poor reporting. Or all three!
The problem is unlike 1933 large sections of the electorate just wanted more Republican
economics to "deal" with the aftermath. That is the difference between a moderate
recession(historically) and a collapse like the early 1930's had when the British Empire and
the de Rothschild dynasty finally collapsed.
40% didn't want anything the Obama Administration came up with succeed. 40% wanted more
than they could possible politically come up with and that left 20% to actually get something
done. You see why the Democrats had to take losses.
Even if Health Care, which was controversial in the party was nixed for more "stimulus",
Democrats look weak. Politically, Stimulus wasn't that popular and "fiscal deficit" whiners were going to whine
and there are a lot of them.
Naked Capitalism ignores this reality instead, looking for esoteric fantasy. I would argue
Democrats in 2009-10 looked for short term political gain by going with Health Care reform
instead of slowly explaining the advantage of building public assets via stimulus, because
the party was to split on Health Care to create a package that would satisfy enough
Similar the Republican party, since Reagan had done the opposite, took short term
political gain in 2016, which was a mistake, due to their Clinton hatred.
Which is now backfiring and the business cycle is not in a kind spot going forward, which
we knew was likely in 2016.
So not only does "Republican fatigue" hurt in 2018, your on the political defensive for
the next cycle. Short-termism in politics is death.
A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were
going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public
I truly don't understand your point of view. I also don't understand your claim that NC
deals in fantasy.
Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could
have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement,
SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in
Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax
cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned
comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that
people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress.
There's even the bland procedural tactic of delaying the release of the Obamacare exchange
premium price increases until after the election in 2016. He could have delayed that notice
several months and saved Hillary a world of hurt at the polls. But he chose not to use the
administrative tools at his disposal in that case. He also could have seen the writing on the
wall with the multiple shut down threats and gotten ahead of it by asking Congress that if
you are deemed an essential employee you will continue to be paid regardless of whether your
department is funded during a shutdown. With 80% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck
that would have been a huge deal.
And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill
single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy
surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political
advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they
didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and
Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance.
Obama took a huge organization that could have helped him barnstorm the country (OFA) just
like what Bernie is doing now and killed it early in his first term. He had a mandate for
change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to
use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to
all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she
needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes.
Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their
constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. By the time 2016 rolled
around, there were estimates which placed 90% of the counties in the US as not having
recovered from the disaster in 2007. Hillary ran on radical incrementalism aka the status
quo. Who in their right mind could have supported the status quo in 2016?
The Democrats lost seats at all levels of government because of their own incompetence,
because of their cowardice, because of their lazy assumptions that people had nowhere else to
go. So when record numbers of people didn't vote they lost by slim margins in states long
considered True Blue. There is nothing cyclical about any of that.
People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't
see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do.
The citizens of
this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They
want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities
than they did.
Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the Democrats stalking MSM cameras could
have delivered on some of that but chose not to. And here we are. With President Trump. And
even his broken clock gets something right twice a day, whereas Team Blue has a 50/50 chance
of making the right decision and chooses wrong everytime.
Please provide better examples of your points if you truly want to defend your
And, that often mentioned reason for voting for Democrats, the Supreme Court. Neither
Obama nor the Democrats fought for their opportunity to put their person on the Supreme
Court. Because of norms I guess. Which actually makes some sense because it broke norms.
Because they simply don't care
This is complete and utter nonsense. Your calling depicting NC as "fantasy" is a textbook
example of projection on your part.
The country was terrified and demoralized when Obama took office. Go read the press in
December 2008 and January 2009, since your memory is poor. He not only had window of
opportunity to do an updated 100 days, the country would have welcomed. But he ignored it and
the moment passed.
Obama pushed heath care because that was what he had campaigned on and had a personal
interest in it. He had no interest in banking and finance and was happy to let Geither run
As for stimulus, bullshit. Trump increased deficit spending with his tax cuts and no one
cares much if at all. The concern re deficit spending was due to the fact that the Obama
economic team was the Clinton (as in Bob Rubin) economics team, which fetishized balanced
budgets or even worse, surpluses. We have explained long form that that stance was directly
responsible for the rapid increase in unproductive household debt, most of all mortgage debt,
which produced the crisis.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -