Deep state is now trying to convert Trump into Obama II, or Bush III
They want to eliminate his stance against neoliberal globalization, against hostility
with Russia, and neoliberal wars for the expansion of US-led global neoliberal empire
Much depends on how many neocons will be slipped into his administration
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first
in New Hampshire. Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment in Arizona and, in terms
of paleo-conservatism, many thought he was the Last of the Mohicans. Trump's campaign is Buchananesque
with one difference: Trump has money... -- by Joseph R. Murray II
(Orlando Sentinel, Aug 12, 2015)
The fact the American people discarded the neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton is encouraging, but
as it is not clear whether Trump is capable to deliver his key foreign policy promises, such a
detente with Russia, and no new wars of neoliberal empire expansion. Or he will be co-opted by
Washington neocons and gradually became Bush IV or Obama II.
In this chess game, Trump will need to find new people ready to go and skillfully navigate
around the neocon swamp and land mines. Separately, Trump has put in new rules prohibiting lobbying
for five years after service in his administration and total prohibition of being lobbyist of
foreign states. That is really revolutionary and this alone make Trump distinct from a typical
Wall Street and Corporate America were almost certain of a Hillary victory. The crony
capitalists, who contributed to Hillary’s campaign, to protect themselves from the economic
policies of liberals, gave almost nothing to Trump. He doesn’t owe them a thing. And, Trump not
only ran against the powerful Democrat machine, he ran against the Republican establishment, and
the broadcast and print media, who were brutally against him. Winning under those circumstances
puts Trump in a very strong and independent position. He has waken enough Americans to the
reality of elitism. It’s the beginning of the end of the long depression, the social destruction,
and the foreign policy disasters. Trump will be a hard liner to right the ship.
The good news is that Hillary Clinton won’t be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and
probably forever, we are rid of the two most obnoxious and corrupt political families in recent
American history, the Bushes and the Clintons. For this, we need to thank Donald Trump. Please
remember him on Thanksgiving Day.
On trade policy, job creation, infrastructure development and preserving
the standard of living of middle class, the positions Trump took during the campaign beat anything
Hillary promised. Despite running as a Republican (but more correctly he run and an independent)
Trump outflanked her from the left. Can he deliver is another question. As professor
Andrew Levine wrote in
With Trump and For Himon (CounterPunch, Nov 18, 2016).
And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and
imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less
lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common
Clinton’s overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand
American world domination — in the face of economic decline, and at no matter
what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries
in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network
executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals.
The Trump way is, as they say, “transactional.” The idea is to wheel and
deal on a case-by-case basis, with no further, non-pecuniary end in view.
... ... ...
Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the
world’s hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment’s aim; it is
therefore Clinton’s too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump’s way is far
from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless.
During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and
financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some
time, though, the “populist” billionaire has been signaling to his class
brothers and sisters in the financial “industry” that he is more likely to
deregulate than to regulate their machinations.
This will become even clearer once Trump settles on key Cabinet posts and on
his economic advisors. It is already plain, though, that the modern day
counterparts of Theodore Roosevelt’s “malefactors of great wealth” have little
to fear; they and Trump are joined by indissoluble bonds of class-consciousness
Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump’s candidacy at first;
because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are
sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street.
Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of
the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can
therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good
for the country.
Clinton’s defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European
capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other
countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good
for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people.
If he means it, then more power to him. The United States and the rest of
the world would be well rid of the American dominated military alliances now in
place; NATO most of all. However, having talked with him, Obama is now telling
the Europeans that Trump is fine with NATO. Time will tell.
Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler
state already gets from the United States isn’t nearly enough. So much for
allies paying their own way!
However, even if Trump leaves America’s perpetual war regime and its military
alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so
much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to
start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough
of an embarrassment, to undermine America’s prestige, hastening the day when
the hegemon is a hegemon no more.
This would be good for most Americans, and good for the world.
The election he won has already done a lot to explode the idea, more widely
believed at home than abroad, that American “democracy” is somehow a model for
What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration. At the same time,
Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions.
The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency is a network of
enormous power with Trump now at its center. Washington
insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and
influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate
alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to
every issue in which the government has a hand.
The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below
the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in
Congress. Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the
people he appoints. He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes.
People around him want his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what
he hears, whom he sees, the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel.
Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts
implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his
Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take up
headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new
robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There
is a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work
toward their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates
unbelievably large amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised
to drain but won’t. He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington’s power and he cannot
accomplish that, nor does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the
redirection of money and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a
greater right, and a truly greater people and country.
The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a
blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping
over their losses (see here and here.)
But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither
will demonstrations against Trump.
The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years.
There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans
recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. This gave way almost
immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous tree that now cuts out
the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that tree. Long live the
establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense powers over
our lives — these became the social and political reality. Trump isn’t going to change it. He’s a
president administering a presidency. He’s at the top of the heap. His credo is still “Long Live
America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment
and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required»
to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s
inner circle of advisers.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists
and not permit them to infest his administration.
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley,
Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form
of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage
America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched
neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director
Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are
seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince
Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela,
Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political
groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the
Trump administration from its outset.
It is January 20th, 2017. President Donald J. Trump is presiding over his very first meeting with
his national security team.
Trump : We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.
CIA : We cannot do that, sir. We created them.
Trump : The Democrats created them.
CIA : We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.
Trump : Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.
CIA : We can't do that.
Trump : Why is that?
CIA : India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.
Trump : I don't care.
CIA : India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower.
We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.
Trump : But you have to destroy the Taliban.
CIA : Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they
are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.
Trump : We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the
Pentagon : Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't
have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own
Trump : Then, let us invade Iran.
Pentagon : We cannot do that either, sir.
Trump : Why not?
CIA : We are talking to them, sir.
Trump : What? Why?
CIA : We want our Stealth Drones back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to
our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.
Trump : Then let us invade Iraq again.
CIA : Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.
Trump : Why not the whole of Iraq?
CIA : We need the Shi'ite govt of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.
Trump : I am banning Muslims from entering the US.
Homeland Security : We can't do that.
Trump : Why not?
Homeland Security : Then our own population will stop fearing terrorism and be harder to control.
Trump : I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.
Border patrol : You can't do that, sir.
Trump : Why not?
Border patrol : If they're gone, who will build the wall?
Trump : I am banning H1B visas.
USCIS : You cannot do that.
Trump : Why?
Chief of Staff : If you do so, we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which
is in India.
Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???
CIA : Enjoy the White House, sir! We'll take care of the rest!
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
them to snap out of it
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
just Republicans – sorry, integer
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
"But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and
over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to
be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating
links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free
assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only
for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.
Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December
30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went
viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources,
had hacked into the "U.S. electricity grid" through a Vermont utility.
That, in turn, led MSNBC journalists, and various Democratic officials, to instantly sound
the alarm that Putin was trying to deny Americans heat during the winter:
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. Peace is not in their books ,war is .John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time ,after the Cuban crisis , and this could not be allowed to happen . Same $hit different pile. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's
hard to have any sympathy for him.
Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime
TV game show host, I want to puke.
I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was
clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass
the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly
why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and
the rapprochement with Russia squashed.
Peace is not in their books ,war is .John Kennedy
had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time ,after the Cuban crisis
, and this could not be allowed to happen .
David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing
and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet,
per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should
have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from
the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria
emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions
would have supported him.
But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because
he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support
from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although
he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame
but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.
When an outsider (like
Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep
State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office.
And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.
The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and
Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State
You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with
The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of
the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I
predict all hell breaking loose in America.
"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City."
Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure
there will come another provocation against Russia. This will probably be the Joint Investigation
Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17
July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the
Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has
given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read
it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html
and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds
me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing
their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters,
and destroy their village.
Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.
21/06/2017 The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial
Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that
is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.
The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot
down a Syrian warplane, setting off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors
of the Times have the closest ties with US military and intelligence officials and no doubt
were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.
Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the
language of war to assert: "A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United
States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack
is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."
The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and
audacity of the Russian efforts." The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies
have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:
"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence
broke into the email accounts of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens of thousands of emails to the website
WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage the
"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in
some cases tried to alter or delete voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers
of more than 100 local election officials in the days before the November 8 vote."
Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times
' assertions. What is the evidence that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked
to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied material to WikiLeaks, or that
(other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The
entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.
If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported
claims by US intelligence agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January
2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence apparatus, mainly to the
Times and the Washington Post .
The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers,
are based on a National Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web
publication, which even The Intercept admitted contained no underlying evidence
to substantiate the NSA's claims.
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine
investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists
of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials
offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like
"we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than
previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that
has killed more than one million people.
In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible
sources of the leaked Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual
or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper makes no mention of the content of the
leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.
For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy,"
as the Times puts it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington
to manipulate elections all over the world.
One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the
US government financed political parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations,
blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its own nominees by rigging elections in countries
on every continent.
Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop
snooping operations against foreign governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just
a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone
of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does all
sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.
As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda
from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades,
seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign
affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks
such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.
The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael
Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton
administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID),
a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.
The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful
factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted
by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.
A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells
out the issues relatively clearly. In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the
Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican, "are working to ensure
that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals
like Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose
sanctions against Russia for its actions in backing the Syrian government.
In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem
is not that Russia is interfering with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical
geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East. The newspaper
is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating
military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.
For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents
in the political establishment is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class,
which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world a new and catastrophic world war.
"False flag" operation charges for various "hacks" and "dossiers" now have additional
validity. The DNC hack is the most prominent of them.
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House. ..."
"... "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. ..."
"... In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential. ..."
"... Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents. ..."
"... This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena. ..."
"... The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. ..."
So many of you are triggered to the point of feverish insanity. What sort of subhuman will you
become when Trump is vindicated from all Russian collusion claims and the DOJ starts tossing faggots
into dank prison cells for ginning up fake intelligence reports to take down a President? Paul Sperry
from the NY Post is out with a report tonight, stating the Senate is about to ramp up their efforts
in investigating the birthplace of the debunked Trump-Russian dossier, the one thar claimed germophobe
Trump enjoyed getting urinated on by Russian hookers. For democrats, this might lead to a Mortal
Kombat fatality move if implicated. Criminal charges might rain fire upon them -- like the second
coming of Jesus. Many of you still believe said dossier was, in fact, correct. To those people, dare
I say, prove it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS,
after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the
error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia
scandal now engulfing the White House.
What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as
a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former Wall Street Journal investigative
reporters." But congressional sources say it's actually an opposition-research group for Democrat
s, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump
agenda. "These weren't mercenaries or hired guns," a congressional source familiar with the dossier
probe said. "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting
Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic
ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats
hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And in 2015, Democrat ally
Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion
group. More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton
donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly
shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch
contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal
Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records
show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom
home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer
for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential.
Both partners of Fusion GPS have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch a former Journal bureau chief
in Mexico City, married to a Mexican woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. His
partner, Thomas Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican business magazine. Perhaps we
should now investigate the Democrats' ties to Mexico?
Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the
FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch
, now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe,
and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector
general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton
campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the
FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional
investigators seeking documents.
Criminal at Large Loretta Lynch also had a DOJ tax payer slush fund to fund Political Leftists
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson to immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State
Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed,
leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia and Albania. According
to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros'
Open Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.
As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia,
and other Soros-linked organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.
Why this, when Clinton committed multiple felonies with her private server conducting state department
pay-to-play business for Clinton Foundation cash?
This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence
documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction
of evidence under subpoena.
The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented
"intent" as a new defense to felonies. Etc.
The dossier is not and was not a side show, it was a deliberate creation that failed. I hope all
of these cocksuckers have their assets seized and go to jail ASAP !
I completely agree with Barnes on this one
https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY Most of
you are not any where near pissed off enough and you should be ! No wonder nothing much gets done
and we end up with shit like this in our government when people are so fucking apathetic and acquiescent.
We should all be livid and demand accountability or we certainly won't get it !
Yes the fusion centers nationwide are all part of the Phoenix project brought to us by CIA and
in more recent times the invention of DHS and all the other control mechanisms created here in USA
today. The Phoenix project has morphed into the playbook of all these chicken shit worthless wars
that are really just corp control and political control mechanisms for the insane psychopaths and
sociopaths that have dominated Amercian governemnt for a very long time. The terrorism was a creation
of these same people to be used as a tool and controlled. BHOs crew put it all on steroids for all
of us to see and in a perverse way that is a very good thing indeed ! At least now many Americans
see some of it. Americans are very slow to comprehend even their own demise.
All of the government agencies are well past out of control, not just the spooks. Look at what
IRS did and so far giot away with ? They also need to be prosecuted and dealt with severely, but
they won't unless we demand such and raise hell about all of it !
So the entire DC Ruling Class is assembled in a circular firing squad, each faction investigating
the other and threatening long prison sentences for all playerswhile the rest of America sits in
mortified silence... real Banana Republic stuff... much of this overlaid with assassination talk,
impeachment and vicious propaganda...
Meanwhile the ROW must be amused to watch the Pax Americana Empire self-immolate.
Glenn R. Simpson is FUSION 's President and Managing Partner. Simpson has over 20 years of experience
in research and investigations, including 14 years with The Wall Street Journal as the Washington
bureau's lead investigative reporter. Since entering the commercial intelligence field in early 2009,
he has managed complex projects in the US, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
Simpson specializes in the banking and securities sectors. He is a seasoned expert on the relationship
between government and business and in particular in financial regulation, and is well known in the
capital's financial policymaking, regulatory and enforcement communities. For his articles in The
Wall Street Journal and more recently for private clients, he has analyzed numerous multinational
corporations including difficult international subjects such as banks in the Middle East. He is well
versed in the arcana of tax havens, offshore banking, and securities and accounting fraud. He is
also in expert in political influence and is widely known among Washington's top lobbyists, lawyers,
journalists and lawmakers.
In addition to his long tenure in Washington, Simpson was stationed for three years in Brussels.
There he developed strong knowledge of European business practices and structures as well as many
contacts in the corporate world and media. His recent research work includes a matter resulting in
a significant win for a major government contractor, the exposure of political corruption in Latin
America and the exposure of a case of securities fraud in the UK. In December 2010, his nearly two-year
investigation of a prominent family ended in a favorable client verdict worth over $70 million.
Simpson is a recipient of numerous awards for his articles, speaks frequently in academic fora
and has appeared on many broadcast news programs including CNN, Nightline, Jim Lehrer NewsHour and
the BBC. He is the co-author (with Larry J. Sabato) of the book, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence
of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books/Random House, 1996).
Peter R. Fritsch is a FUSION Partner and Project Leader. Fritsch is a multilingual investigator,
writer and manager with 24 years of experience on four continents. As a reporter and bureau chief
for The Wall Street Journal, he led and participated in Pulitzer Prize-nominated investigations from
Mexico, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Brussels and Washington, DC. He founded the WSJ's Sao Paulo bureau
Fritsch has written widely on the global petroleum industry, guided a global team investigating
the oil and natural resource industries for the WSJ, and has run top caliber corporate coverage around
the world. He enjoys a large network of contacts in business, media and politics in Latin America,
Asia and Europe.
His U.S. bases have included Houston, Boston and New York. While based in Singapore, he worked
extensively in important emerging markets like Vietnam, Indonesia and India and oversaw newsgathering
across South and Southeast Asia.
Most recently, Fritsch led the WSJ's national security and foreign affairs coverage in Washington,
DC. In addition to spearheading coverage of the Pentagon and intelligence community, he has reported
extensively on Iran's efforts to evade nuclear sanctions.
Fritsch's work has been recognized with several industry awards. His investigation of a Mexican
corporate executive ended in the executive's eventual prosecution by Mexican authorities. He was
among the first to sound the alarm regarding a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme in the Caribbean.
His work in Europe included major terror finance and corporate bribery investigations.
Benjamin S. Schmidt is FUSION 's Managing Director. Schmidt is a former government intelligence
analyst. Most recently, he served as Team Lead in the Middle East and Europe office of the US Department
of the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Over 7 years at Treasury, Schmidt ran complex transnational cases involving banking and other
forms of financial activity. His work was often included in the President's Daily Brief and used
to guide policy decisions with global ramifications.
Schmidt has worked extensively with Middle East governments and is schooled in identifying and
mapping financial networks. He has wide knowledge of financial regulation, international monetary
transfer systems and open-source corporate research. At Treasury, he collaborated with the intelligence
community, regulators, policymakers and foreign partners to design economic sanctions programs, and
has wide knowledge of sanctions laws.
Ben has served as a mentor to a cadre of junior Treasury investigators, instructing his partners
in the art of transnational discovery. He is especially adept at devising databases and customized
technological solutions to research problems. He is the recipient of several prestigious internal
awards for his work and holds an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University
Funny you ask, but when the FBI doesn't cooperate with a congressional inquiry, their boss
should fire them!
THE PRESIDENT is the FBI's boss!
He should immediately fire any FBI official who refuses to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Same for the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all the other Executive branches of Government. The congress
holds the purse, but the President is the person who ultimately holds oversight over these rogue
branches of Government.
What the hell is he waiting for, Isn't "Your Fired" part of the mans DNA, did he not promise
to drain this swamp?
June 22, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - - Bull's eye! "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found
zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing
the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted
The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood.
Indeed, what is he waiting for– handcuffs and a perp walk?
Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".
If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would
have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them
declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John
Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information.
Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud.
At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They
became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable
Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be
counted upon to serve as a "trusty" for the status quo; and whose naïve but correct instinct to seek
a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus operandi of the Imperial City.
Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more
than standard cyber noise from Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and
Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.
After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did
not favor Clinton, who had likened him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said
NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the Ukrainians, and had expressed a
desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.
So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president
not only has the power to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without
compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources and methods" in the slightest.
The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put
on notice and most especially Washington's adversaries–that it collects in raw form every single
electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related communications grids. It boils
down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by
publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.
Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document
the unconstitutional interference in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence
agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.
Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying
the "evidence" would amount to obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic
(i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that gets in the way of his conviction and removal
therefrom amounts to "obstruction".
Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald
has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.
But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House
and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan
except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.
That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted
out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson
(his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!
So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead
laying the groundwork for his own demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the
point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight jacket.
Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing.
RussiaGate is self-evidently a witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the
mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional Republican after another yesterday
afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.
Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special
Counsel Robert Mueller while affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly
get to the bottom of the matter.
No he won't!
Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's
surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion
apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism
that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition that
Mueller fully subscribed to.
So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down
on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory
team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have proven records of thuggery when it comes
to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors-even if the crime itself
To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section
of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its
director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious
exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.
Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about
what is coming down the pike.
They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from
the early days of Tricky Dick's ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as
if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while the Donald pummels himself with a
140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.
Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact,
the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election
campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America.
But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August
2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad.
To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the
deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from
regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers,
not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.
In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That,
in turn, paved the way for Vladimir Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all
of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the course of the next year.
Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship
by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal
of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime
So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory
of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington–the CIA, the National
Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs-was on
the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President
and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating
campaign against Russia and its leader.
Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions
of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including
descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII – there could have been no other outcome.
And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named
Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome – especially
after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated
civil war in Ukraine, including protecting its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The
War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression by a potential sacker
of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.
There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing
and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly
"stolen" US election to garnish the case?
In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City.
This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines
on Wall Street.
Pathetically, they still think its game on.
David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican
U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be. ..."
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just
feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration
there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be.
David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders
to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that
any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign
and the Russians."
Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday
he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also
publicly stated .
That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated
contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .
Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign
colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump
is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle
is just too good to let go.
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence.
Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west
to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and
that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere.
Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open;
a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it
looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being
lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.
But the campaign is long over. While many of Mr. Trump's allies and supporters are still reluctant
to blame Russia, the American intelligence community has said that Russian interference is a fact,
not an opinion. Mr. Trump's strategy of muddying his position
has let the Russia issue grow , gumming up the gears in his administration's efforts to move
forward with major legislation and decisions.
"Geopolitically, it touches everything," Mr. DuHaime said.
Officials in a number of states have in the meantime complained that the White House has done
little to try to safeguard the 2018 and 2020 elections against potential Russian intrusions, even
as evidence grows that there were efforts to tamper with voter rolls last year.
Through it all, the president's allies continue to see Russia as a boogeyman for Democrats and
a rapacious news media, an issue his core voters think is manufactured.
"He doesn't want to be set by this narrative that the Russians hacked the election when he has
to negotiate with Russia, who, by the way, sits on China's border," said Sam Nunberg, a former campaign
aide to Mr. Trump. "If Putin adamantly denies that he did it, it's frankly not an issue to the president."
Taken from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Despite initial popularity among his fellow party members and the American public, McCarthy's
career began to decline. Even some moderate Republicans withdrew their support from him because
they felt the senator was hurting the presidential administration. Despite his waning support,
President Eisenhower refrained from publicly reprimanding McCarthy. Apparently, the president
refused to "go into the gutter" with McCarthy by initializing a public confrontation. Doing
so would only create more chaos and generate more publicity for the senator .However, it became
apparent that McCarthy's end was near.
McCarthy's First Strike
In june 1953, J.B. Matthews was appointed as McCarthy's research director. In July, Matthews
published an article called "Reds in our churches" in the conservative American Mercury. In
it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as " the largest single group supporting the
Communist apparatus in the United States." The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well
as his boss McCarthy.
McCarthy began his investigation of the Army Signal Corps Laboratory at Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey in 1953. The laboratory had employed many Jewish engineers from New York. Many of
the civilian employees there were members of the left-leaning Populist Front. In fact, Julius
Rosenberg once worked there. Many of the workers have been inspected and cleared by the government.
The army was already reexamining the entire workforce in 1953.Nevertheless, McCarthy insisted
on opening up an investigation into the matter. McCarthy eventually gave up the investigation
after months of quarreling with the army.
The Irving Peress Case
After giving up his investigation on the Army Signal Corps, McCarthy's
committee began to concentrate on Irving Peress, an Army dentist. Peress had invoked the Fifth
Amendment when filling out the army's questionnaire. Even though he was put under military
surveillance, Peress was still promoted to Major. The army eventually found the paperwork that
called for his dismissal and Peress was quickly discharged.
McCarthy then launched a campaign to criticize the army for allowing Peress to be promoted.
When interrogating General Ralph Zwicker, the senator demanded that the general should reveal
some names. Zwicker refused because he could not violate executive order. In response, McCarthy
rudely insulted the general by comparing his intelligence to that of a "five year old child."
McCarthy's treatment of the general generated a lot of hostility from the press and the American
In retaliation for McCarthy's investigation, the Army accused McCarthy's aide Roy Cohn of
trying to force the Army into giving special treatment to his friend G. David Schine.
The Televised Hearings
The Senate then started hearings into the Peress matter. The investigations and hearings
between the Army and McCarthy was televised live to the public. For two months, Americans watched
on as McCarthy bully witnesses and called "point of order" to make crude remarks.
came on June 9. Representing the Army was Joseph Welch. As the Welch was questioning Cohn,
McCarthy intervened and said,
I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he
recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years
a member of an organization which was named, oh year and years ago, as the legal bulwark of
the Communist party.
Here, McCarthy was referring to Fred Fisher, a young associate in Welch's law firm. Fisher
had refused to come to the hearings because he was once affiliated with the National Lawyers
Guild. In response, Welch said he did not let Fisher come to the hearing because he did not
want to hurt "the lad" on national television. Welch then urged McCarthy to drop the issue.
Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in questioning Fisher's background. At this point Welch exclaimed,
Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left
no sense of decency?
At this point, the entire American public viewed McCarthy with disdain. On television, the
senator from Wisconsin came off as cruel, manipulative and reckless.
The Final Days
The hearings were not the only components that eroded McCarthy's credibility.
Earlier in the year, the journalist Edward R. Murrow had aired a documentary that showed how
McCarthy's charges were groundless and how he had used bullying techniques to harass individuals.
By June, the senator's Gallup Poll ratings fell from 50% to 34%.
On December 2, the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy by a margin of sixty-seven to twenty-two.
Driven by depression from being censured, Joe McCarthy resorted to alcohol, which greatly
worsen his health. On May 2, 1957, Joe McCarthy died from acute hepatitis and was buried in
"... During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known? ..."
"... Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views. ..."
"... In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty. ..."
"... The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime. ..."
"... Consumer Reports, ..."
"... Ladies Home Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium ..."
During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of
America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit
so little known?
Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist
hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object
lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has
been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label
proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate
addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views.
By the peak of his power in 1953, McCarthy's allegations of "Communist subversion" had wrecked
havoc on virtually every level of government-from scores of federal employees whose careers were
ruined by unfounded charges of "treason" to decorated war heroes to highly respected statesmen. McCarthy
even characterized the entire Democratic Party as the "party of treason."
Not surprisingly, there is a long tradition of right-wing pols and pundits who see McCarthy as
a misunderstood hero. Sen. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Tea Party Republican from Texas, has already
won widespread comparisons to McCarthy for his innuendo-laced pronouncements about Democratic members
of Congress and presidential appointees such as Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. Cruz has
welcomed the criticism as "a sign that perhaps
we're doing something right." In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in
2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen
communists on its faculty.
A larger-than-life figure of enduring influence, the story of Joe McCarthy would seem to offer
little in the way of surprises. The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But
the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was
during his lifetime.
That Capitol Hill was rife with drinking and even drugging was an open secret in the 1950s, but
the "private" lives of political figures remained largely unpublicized. This protected McCarthy's
favorable reputation with the American public from the stinging stigma attached to alcoholism and
drug addiction. (There is some speculation that his opiate addiction was the result of either treatment
for "chronic pain" or treatment by sympathetic doctors to help fortify the hangover-hobbled senator
to get him through the day. But he may have had a personality disorder; a friend remarked once that
he "operates in his own moral universe.")
Yet even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable
of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
According to the country's first de-facto drug czar, Harry Anslinger, McCarthy's addiction was
enabled by the federal government. Anslinger, who served as chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
from 1930 to 1962, is credited with successfully demonizing "marijuana" as causing addiction and
insanity, murder and mayhem. More than any other political figure, Anslinger was responsible for
criminalizing opiates and its users. And his word was gospel when it came to the country's nascent
war on drugs.
In his 1961 memoir, The Murderers, Anslinger wrote about finding out, in the 1950s, that
a prominent senator (whom he left unnamed) was addicted to morphine. When confronted by Anslinger,
the politician refused to stop, even daring Anslinger to reveal his addiction, saying it would cause
irreparable harm to the "Free World." Anslinger responded to this gambit by securing the lawmaker
a steady supply of dope from a Washington, DC, pharmacy. (Morphine taken by prescription was, then
as now, legal.)
Anslinger's acquiescence was a testament to just how feared McCarthy was in his heyday. Few dared
to speak above a whisper about his evident alcoholism. "[He] went on for some time, guaranteed his
morphine because it was underwritten by the Bureau," Anslinger wrote. "On the day he died I thanked
God for relieving me of my burden."
Beltway insiders guessed that the smack-addicted senator's bullying threats and bombastic appeals
to patriotism-not to mention the fact that he had died in office-pointed to the late Joseph McCarthy.
Anslinger, however, refused to reveal the name to reporters. The story dropped out of circulation
until 1972, when a landmark study on the effects of narcotics, issued by Consumer Reports,
repeated it (still with no name attached) in a chapter on "eminent narcotic addicts."
Even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of
shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, which riveted Americans to their small black-and-white television
sets in 1954, McCarthy's combustible mix of grandiosity and paranoia was on full self-destructive
display. Every so often a senator on the subcommittee would remind viewers-among whom McCarthy's
favorability ratings were falling by the week-of the real reason for the proceedings: an investigation
of charges that McCarthy had tried to blackmail the Army into giving special favors to a McCarthy
aide who had been drafted. All spring, McCarthy played to the cameras in his deep-throated baritone,
using the hearings to preach "communist infiltration" at all levels of government (including the
Army), and appealing to what he called the "real jury-the 16 million television viewers out there."
But then Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy over his attempt to blacken the reputation
of a young Welch associate, for purportedly joining a "Communist-front" lawyers organization. When
McCarthy persisted, a visibly shaken Welch famously upbraided him with these words: "Senator. You
have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The packed hall burst into applause.
By the time the gavel fell on the hearings, McCarthy could be seen desperately haranguing an empty
chamber. Having finally gone too far, he was censured by a slim majority of his peers. Neither the
career nor the man himself ever recovered; he died three years later. McCarthy's last years were
not pretty. He was in and out of the hospital with exhaustion, broken bones, failing organs. Apt
to suddenly appear on crutches, or with his arm in a sling, he fluctuated noticeably in weight. His
official cause of death, "noninfectious, seldom fatal, hepatitis, cause unknown," is not consistent
with the acute alcoholic's liver disease that is generally thought to have killed him.
McCarthy's opiate addiction became public fodder only after Anslinger's death. A 1978 article
in, of all places, Ladies Home Journal named McCarthy as the senator in Anslinger's autobiography.
"Agents who worked under [Anslinger] claim that the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy was addicted to morphine
and regularly obtained his narcotics through a druggist near the White House, authorized by Anslinger
to fill the prescription," Maxine Cheshire wrote.
Given Cheshire's credentials as a respected Washington Post reporter, the report was
treated not as gossip but as news, and widely disseminated. United Press International (UPI) put
it starkly, "[McCarthy] was a morphine addict who had his drugs supplied by the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics for the sake of national security."
In Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium , a 1981 investigation into the history of
opium use, addiction and interdiction, Dean Latimer reported that the relationship between Anslinger
and McCarthy was more complicated and hypocritical than Anslinger had ever let on. Just when the
top drug-enforcer was supplying McCarthy with his government-approved pharmaceutical smack, the two
worked hand in hand to pin the country's burgeoning heroin trade on a Communist Chinese plot, even
though the trafficking was clearly a mafia-controlled operation. Such a fiction would have conveniently
served the federal government's relaxed policy toward organized crime. (During his 40-year reign,
J. Edgar Hoover never even acknowledged Cosa Nostra's very existence.)
The last mainstream mention of McCarthy's morphine addiction that this writer has uncovered dates
back to 1989, when the Philadelphia
Inquirer attacked scholarship supporting Cheshire's findings. By now, of course, anyone
who could have authoritatively confirmed the story is long dead.
McCarthy was undoubtedly a man who wrestled with more than his share of private demons that he
was only too eager to unleash on the nation. His exploitation of his country's greatest fears have
made him a polarizing figure. To most, he is a cautionary tale about the abuse of power. But to some,
he is an exemplar of the principle that, as the late Arizona senator Barry Goldwater famously said,
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Given the current climate of polarization in our
national politics, it is not surprising that McCarthy-as-myth has made a comeback.
For the recovery community, there is a special question in the story of Joe McCarthy. Whether
omitted by those who would rehabilitate him or advertised by those who would vilify him, his addiction
is viewed as a shameful "scarlet letter." For those of us who view addiction as a disease to be treated
with sympathy-and who reserve none of that emotion for McCarthy the demagogue-coming to terms with
McCarthy the addict is, to say the least, challenging.
Matt Harvey is an award-winning freelance journalist whose writing has appeared on
AnimalNY.com , Black Book, the New York
Post and the New York Press, among other publications. He lives in Manhattan.
This is a warning to several prominent commenters of this blog: it is quite possible that Faustian
bargain of alliance with the deep state to depose Trump might backfire and produce completely
opposite result -- strong and durable alliance of Trump and the deep state on the basis of the
same model that existed from 2003 -- inverted totalitarism introduced by Bush II. In this case
you can kiss hopes not only for impeachment, but also for 2020 reversal goodbye.
Many "never-Trumpers" see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope
to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to
subvert constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a
June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized
factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump
initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans,
and mass surveillance."
Inverted totalitarism is completely compatible with Trumpism ("bastard neoliberlaism"):
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system
in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year
of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance
is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government
ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to
the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors.
However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now
has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.
"... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
"... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by
and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the
Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
"Hence my suggesting
Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "
Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American
exceptionalism is pretty toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right
movements poison discourse in their respective countries.
Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then
Ukrainians (who are now experiencing Central African level of poverty) but still huge.
I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly.
But that's just me.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the
information in its entirety. I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the
presidential election in the USA.
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.
I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final
address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin
of that address. 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. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply
convinced that no interference from the outside, in any country, even a small one, let alone in such
a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome of the elections. It
is not possible. Ever.
Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election,
and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are
structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters.
And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?
Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that
electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be
elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily
monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections
to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't
want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering
in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?
Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince
them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere
you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does
influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the
United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering?
You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each
action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not
tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was
in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy
tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States.
We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't
make any sense for us to interfere.
Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference
of the American election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it.
Why the change and why now?
Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and
just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia,
in America, in Latin America. 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.
Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United
States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts
between your government and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just
doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed in those meetings?
Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that
my jaw dropped.
Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?
Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every
day, routine work. Do you think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports
to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand
what you are asking me?
Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk
to our ambassadors all over the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this
is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with whom he met there. Had there been something
out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister and the minister
would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country
full of corruption, a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered,
a country in which dissidents could wind up in jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is
without question so. No one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry
and some other domestic developments, we see things happen here that are typical of other countries,
I do not see anything unusual in it.
We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of
view. However, if people, while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective
law in place, then of course, the law enforcement agencies try to restore order.
I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and
in my discussions with other European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use
batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling order, something that we often see in
other countries, including in the United States.
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The
law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces,
and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United
States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do
you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize
and to teach us how we should live?
We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it
is done in a friendly manner, in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate
ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will not accept when such things are used as a tool
of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.
The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the
investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary
and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation
by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking
dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer
evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we
assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than
previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war
that has killed more than one million people.
WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after
he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:
"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable
for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world.
There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and
activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in
Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important
tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could
endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners
and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension
between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed
role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's
decades-long support for radical extremism."
A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering
with the 2016 presidential election and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more
- but President Trump doesn't seem to care.
The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent
weeks, but it shouldn't be. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct
aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost five months in office, the commander
in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of the
Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of
his electoral win.
If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign
and the Russians - and whether Mr. Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's
indifference would be front-page news.
So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.
Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence
broke into the email accounts of...
Why critique this campaign against Russia
As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it
Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership
Point out the motivation
Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres
Yes the NYT and the WP
Both are working with the deep state
Once called the invisible government
Much as they have in he past
Why I like he color revolution analogy
These media titans are working with the DS
Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan
Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of
atmosphere makes us wary of using any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment
for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves the way in which China is generally
regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.
"... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
"... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
"... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
"... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
"... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian
interference in the presidential election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and
totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different. As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in
the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot
about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's
not the one that Trump supporters would have us think.
The President's loyal minions, following
a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign against Mueller, claiming that
he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing
biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government,
including the White House, as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full
truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he was involved in a major national crisis–namely,
the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm
on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for
the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect
and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many
of the future perpetrators to the United States.
The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House
bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House
Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.
Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than
the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.
Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with
two of the future hijackers: Khalid Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya
and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi, who had battle experience in
Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the
time had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.
The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men
on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending
an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted into the United States on tourist visas.
They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver licenses,
and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They
also had contact with a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the
FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English
professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego office, charged
with monitoring the city's Saudi community.
As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence
of possible terrorist plans to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this
threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office
in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn the Bureau
about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to
let these men get on planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American
Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped crash it into the Pentagon.
While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing
future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint
Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who
had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior
to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that
the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one
FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."
Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that
"while here [in America] the hijackers effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing
that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed them to domestic coverage."
There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.
Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry.
The FBI refused to cooperate, blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears
to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him. Despite insisting that the informant had
done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which Graham
refused to do.
As Graham would later describe in is book
the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people
that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings
on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified
report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the public
report, and even then it was heavily redacted.
Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he
had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions
from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to
their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence
failure, will likely never be known.
So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's
supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its
earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more
so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary
one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms
of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders.
What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct
would be to try to preserve some semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency.
But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with the intelligence agencies–what some
people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the best
interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one
way Mueller could do so is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's
true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on Trump and run him out of office.
As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no
idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and
But Nunes complained on the radio show Monday that Democrats want to
look now into accusations that Trump committed obstruction of justice because, he asserted,
the probe so far has turned up "no evidence of collusion" between the president and the
"Republicans are getting tired of what appears to be investigations
without a crime," Nunes said. "If someone doesn't pull a Russian out of a hat soon," he
said, people "have got to question what is going on."
People who share dangerous ideas don't necessarily believe them.
The catastrophe wasn't what it seemed. It was an inside job, people whispered. Rome didn't have
to burn to the ground.
Nearly 2,000 years ago, after the
Great Fire of Rome leveled most of the city, Romans questioned whether the emperor Nero had ordered
his guards to start the inferno so he could rebuild Rome the way he wanted. They said the emperor
had watched the blaze from the the summit of Palatine Hill, the centermost of the seven hills of
Rome, plucking his lyre in celebration as countless people died. There's no evidence of this maniacal
lyre-playing, but historians today still debate whether Nero orchestrated the disaster.
What we do know is this: Conspiracy theories flourish when people feel vulnerable. They thrive
on paranoia. It has always been this way.
So it's understandable that, at this chaotic moment in global politics, conspiracy theories seem
to have seeped out from the edges of society and flooded into mainstream political discourse. They're
That's partly because of the richness of today's informational environment. In Nero's day, conspiracy
theories were local. Today, they're global. The web has made it easier than ever for people to watch
events unfold in real time. Any person with a web connection can participate in news coverage, follow
contradicting reports, sift through blurry photos, and pick out (
or publish ) bad information. The democratization of internet publishing and the ceaseless news
cycle work together to provide a never-ending deluge of raw material that feeds conspiracy theories
of all stripes.
From all over the world, likeminded people congregate around the same comforting lies, explanations
that validate their ideas. "Things seem a whole lot simpler in the world according to conspiracy
theories," writes Rob Brotherton, in his book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories.
"The prototypical conspiracy theory is an unanswered question; it assumes nothing is as it seems;
it portrays the conspirators as preternaturally competent; and as unusually evil."
But there's a difference between people talking about outlandish theories and actually believing
them to be true. "Those are two very different things," says Joseph Uscinski, a political science
professor at the University of Miami and the co-author of the book American Conspiracy Theories
. "There's a lot of elite discussion of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that anyone's
believing them any more than they did in the past. People understand what conspiracy theories are.
They can understand these theories as political signals when they don't in fact believe them."
And most people don't, Uscinski says. His data shows that belief in partisan conspiracy theories
maxes out at 25 percent-and rarely reach that point. Imagine a quadrant, he says, with Republicans
on the right and Democrats on the left. The top half of the quadrant is the people of either party
who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The bottom half is the people least likely
to believe them. Any partisan conspiracy theory will only resonate with people in one of the two
top-half squares-because to be believable, it must affirm the political worldview of a person who
is already predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories.
"You aren't going to believe in theories that denigrate your own side, and you have to have a
previous position of buying into conspiracy logic," Uscinski says.
Since conspiracy theories are often concerned with the most visible concentration of power, the
president of the United States is a frequent target. "So when a Republican is president, the accusations
are about Republicans, the wealthy, and big business; and when a Democrat is president, the accusations
focus on Democrats, communists, and socialists."
"Right now," he added, "Things are little different. Because of Donald Trump."
As it turns out, the most famous conspiracy theorist in the world is the president of the United
States. Donald Trump spent years spreading birtherism, a movement founded on the idea that his predecessor
was born outside the country and therefore ineligible for the nation's highest office. (Even when
Trump finally admitted in September that he knew Barack Obama was born in the United States,
he attempted to spark a new conspiracy .)
Now, Trump's presidency is the focus of a range of conspiracies and cover-ups-from the
very real investigation he's under to the crackpot ideas about him constantly being floated by
some of his detractors on the left. Like the implication that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are involved
in a money laundering scheme with the Russians, plus countless more theories about who's funneling
Russian money where and to whom.
"The left has lost its fucking mind, and you can quote me on that," Uscinski said. "They spent
the last eight years chastising Republicans about being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, and they have
become exactly what they swore they were not. The hypocrisy is thick and it's disgusting."
Trump's strategy in the face of all this drama has been to treat real and fake information interchangeably
and discredit any report that's unflattering to him. It's why he refers to reputable news organizations
as "fake news," and why he brags about "going around" journalists by tweeting directly to the people.
He wants to shorten the distance between the loony theories on the left and legitimate allegations
of wrongdoing against him, making them indistinguishable.
Pushing conspiracy theories helped win Trump the presidency, and he's now banking on the idea
that they'll help him as president. He's casting himself as the victim of a new conspiracy-a "witch
hunt" perpetrated by the forces that want to see him fail.
"Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories," Uscinski says. "You can win the presidency
on conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are
for losers, and now he's a winner."
What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those
who perceive themselves to be the underdog. "But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the
House, and the White House, you can't pull that," Uscinski says. "Just like how Hillary Clinton can't,
in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Donald Trump may be the most famous conspiracy theorist in America, but a close second is the
Infowars talk-radio personality Alex Jones, who has made a name for himself spewing reprehensible
theories. He claimed the
Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax. He says 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were
carried out by the U.S. government. Jones has an online store where he peddles products like iodine
to people prepping for the apocalypse.
Jones has long been a controversial figure, but not enormously well known. That's changing. Jones
was a vocal supporter of Trump, who has in turn praised Jones. "Your reputation is amazing,"
Trump told him in an Infowars appearance in 2015. "I will not let you down." Jones has claimed
he is opening a Washington Bureau and considering applying for White House press credentials.
The latest Jones drama is a three-parter (so far): First, the NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly
she had interviewed Jones, and that NBC would air the segment on Sunday, June 18. Next came the backlash:
People disgusted by Jones blasted Kelly and NBC, saying a man whose lies had tortured the families
of murdered children should never be given such a prominent platform. Even Jones joined the fracas,
saying he'd been treated unfairly in the interview. Finally, on Thursday night, Jones claimed he
had secretly recorded the interview, and would release it in full. (So far, he has released what
seems to be audio from a phone conversation with Kelly that took place before the interview.)
Kelly has defended her decision to do the interview in the first place by describing Jones's popularity:
"How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president
of the United States and an audience of millions?" The public interest in questioning a person like
Jones, she argues, eclipses any worries about normalizing his outlandish views. The questions are
arguably more valuable than the answers.
Many journalists agree with Kelly's reasoning. But it's also true, scholars say, that giving a
platform to conspiracy theorists has measurable harmful effects on society. In 1995, a group of Stanford
University psychologists interviewed people either right before or right after they'd viewed Oliver
Stone's 1991 film JFK , which was full of conspiracy theories. Brotherton, who describes the
findings in Suspicious Minds, says people leaving the movie described themselves as less likely
to vote in an upcoming election and less likely to volunteer or donate to a political campaign, compared
with those walking in. "Merely watching the movie eroded, at least temporarily, a little of the viewer's
sense of civic engagement," Brotherton writes.
There are other examples of real-world consequences of giving platforms to conspiracy theorists,
too. The conspiracy theory known as
Pizzagate , which rose to prominence across websites like 4chan and niche conservative blogs,
resulted in a man firing a weapon in a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor.
The debate over Kelly's interview comes on the heels of another high-profile conspiracy theory
that sent shockwaves through conservative media circles. At the center of that scandal was the TV
host Sean Hannity
pushing a conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a Democratic National Committee staff
member and an explosive Fox News report about the murder that was
* * *
There's a popular science-fiction podcast, Welcome to Night Vale , developed around the
idea of life in a desert town where all conspiracy theories are true. It was first released in June
2012, the summer before a U.S. presidential election, at a moment when Trump was test-driving a new
anti-Obama conspiracy. "I wonder when we will be able to see @BarackObama's college and law school
applications and transcripts," he
the day Night Vale launched. "Why the long wait?"
Joseph Fink, who co-created the podcast, says conspiracy theories today are continuing to function
the way they always have. Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult stories. They provide
a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem ordered. "Especially if it's ordered against
you," he says. "Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even more comforting."
"That said, more extreme conspiracy theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
dangerous," Fink adds. "Conspiracy theories act in a similar way as religious stories: they give
you an explanation and structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same power it has to move people
also is easily turned into a power to move people against other people."
Look for the last awakening of this sort in the United States, and you'll find a sea of similarities-of
course, as conspiracy theories tell us, it's easy to find connections when you go looking for them.
Several scholars-people who focus on real conspiracies and people who study conspiracy theories-say
the paranoia surrounding the Trump presidency evokes the tumult surrounding the Vietnam War. It's
not that conspiracy theories weren't, at times, rampant before that. In the 1940s and 1950s, McCarthyism
and the trial of Alger Hiss brought with them a surreal spate of hoaxes and misinformation. But it
was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that set off a "general sense of suspicion" that
would permeate the culture for some time, says Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas:
A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination.
"Part of that was, what occurred almost immediately after the assassination, in the years afterward,
was Vietnam," Thompson said, "And over time, a complete loss of confidence in what ever the government
was saying about Vietnam. That was not just from the presidency, that was from the government itself."
This was also a period in which some of the most dramatic ideas that had been disparaged as conspiracy
theories turned out to be true. "I am not a crook," Nixon had insisted. Less than a year later, he
resigned. Nixon and Trump are compared not infrequently. Not all presidents are so thin-skinned and
antagonistic to the press. Jennifer Senior, reviewing a recent Nixon biography,
wrote that "the similarities between Nixon and Trump leap off the page like crickets." Nixon
may have been increasingly paranoid in the final months of his presidency, but he didn't have access
to the technology that Trump uses to showcase his conspiracy mindedness.
"With real conspiracy theorists, there's a kind of-how to put it-almost a dialectic operative,"
Thompson says. "Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to
hold your audience."
I tell Thompson the idea Uscinski had shared, about how a person can win the presidency on conspiracy
theories, but how they don't work so well once you're president. He seems to agree. "In a campaign,
what you're trying to do is affect people's opinions that will be harvested on one day," he said.
"But governing doesn't have to do with people's opinions. It has to do with facts. That's the real
When the facts are disputed, of course, you do the best you can with the evidence you can find.
Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination
, has spent years thinking about all this. When I bring up the enormity of unknown unknowns in
people's understanding of history, Thompson quotes the writer Geoffrey O'Brien: Black Deutschland
by Darryl Pinckney.
"And that's the trouble," Thompson says. "What may appear as conspiracy theory at one point turns
out to be truth at another."
I ask Thompson how sure he is about the official explanation of the JFK assassination, that there
was one gunman who fired on the president's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository.
Thompson believes, based on controversial acoustic evidence, that on November 22, 1963, a shot
was fired from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza-not just from the depository. "The acoustics give
us a kind of template for how the event occurred-these two flurries of shots, separated by about
six seconds." (Thompson later clarified that he believes the flurries of shots were 4.6 seconds apart.)
He says it was two shots in the second flurry that killed Kennedy.
"Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?"
"After all these years? What do you think?"
* New York Review of Books writer Geoffrey O'Brien, who
first wrote the line in
his review of the Darryl Pinckney novel Black Deutschland.
** Thompson clarified
after publication that he believes the flurries of shots in the Kennedy assassination were 4.6 seconds
apart, not six seconds apart. He believes Kennedy was killed by two shots in the second flurry, not
by the two flurries of shots.
Obama was closely allied with intelligence services. So they now protect him and his close circle.
"... Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following: ..."
"... Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request. ..."
Back in April,
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of "the identities
of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team" by Obama's
National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama
administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related
to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years."
Here is the full
letter received from the National Secruity Council:
"Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under
the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after
an administration has left office."
Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar
records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative
thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the
Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf
of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or
the Clinton presidential campaign.
Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign
or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual
acting on behalf of the Russian government.
The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition
team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or
any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response
to any request described in part 1 of this request.
Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of
the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor
Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security
Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.
Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near
future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that
he gets booted from office in 2020. Even better, as
The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at
the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what
happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
OK, so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. All any administration has to do is
obfuscate and delay FOIA requests until it leaves Office, then everything remains sealed for 5
This cannot have been the intention behind the FOIA and it make the adminstration completely
untransparent and unaccountable, which of course irrespective in the case of the Obozo administration,
it always was (despite the fact that this was the self-declared "most transparent administration
ever"). This goes nicely along the ability of members of an old administration to decline to appear
before Congressional hearings even under subpoena.
Oh, and BTW the Presidential Library hasn't even been built yet so where are the records now?
Of course, if it ever does get built on the South side of Chicago (if Chicago still exists by
then) there is a very good chance that it will get burnt down and all its contents destroyed.
That would be convenient wouldn't it?
This completely wreaks of "Banana Republic". What if there is a Court Order; does this still
"Welp, looks like Elmer Fudd Moving & Storage LLC never delivered the requested documents to
the Obama Bath House Library and Massage Parlor as contracted. We have spoken to our lawyers and
are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the former owners of EFM&S even though they are
now domiciled in the Cayman Islands."
To which prosecutor nmewn says: "Don't bother. The mishandling, transfer, theft, tampering
and/or destruction of government property is still a ten year felony. The simple fact it is admitted
you entrusted that property to EFM&S LLC is all the evidence I need to proceed with the prosecution
so, thanks I guess."
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie. ..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news
media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit
here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his
sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has "
no moral equivalent " in
the United States. He's a
dictator , a
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?"
Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world,"
he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump.
"We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are
going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name
politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed
nothing would change on the foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia,
being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think
it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody.
People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse
of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't
be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always
blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving
about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone
all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and
the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold
War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator,
The audience member explained that as Colbert pressed
Oscar winner Stone - who was promoting his new Vladimir
Putin Showtime series, "The Putin Interviews" - on his
apparent sympathy for the Russian president in spite of
claims about Russian interference in the US election,
Stone, at a disadvantage, tried to shift the talk to
The source said they "watched from behind
[their] hands" as Stone said words to the effect of:
"Israel had far more involvement in the US election than
The "Platoon" director further challenged Colbert by
saying, "Why don't you ask me about that?" - but we're
told that the host shot back, "I'll ask you about that
when you make a documentary about Israel!"
"... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
"... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone
briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing
that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them."
A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme,
responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by
challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why
don't you ask me about that?"
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website,
demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television.
of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby, most notably acting through its American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than anyone representing
the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and
also at state and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, which would permit scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt
"educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into AIPAC's empowerment
of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American
electoral process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was
John F. Kennedy, who also was about to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program
when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced
by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren
Commission looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing
but one has to wonder if they also investigated the possible roles of other countries. Likewise,
the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel in the terrorist
attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced
covert operations running in the U.S. at that time.
Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer
described the consequences
of Jewish power vis-à-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president –
I don't care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't
writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our
government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."
He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent
the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.
[And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to
rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests ahead
of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli
It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is,
if anything, more pervasive in 2017 Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as
in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way through congress with little
or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly,
there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement
is not intended to do anything good for the American people.
During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and
One bill might actually have been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's
Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors, most of whom are the usual suspects,
but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive,
including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no"
to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and
it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting "no."
to S.722 than Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter
Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much of it is designed to increase sanctions on both
Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions without approval
by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring conventional and asymmetric
Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle
East, North Africa, and beyond."
ORDER IT NOW
The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United
States, is limited. It is far outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has
become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former generals who serve as White House
advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have
managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent
and heavily Jewish influenced western media.
And there's more. A
bill has surfaced in the House of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult"
with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries in the Middle East. In other words,
Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United States
does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois,
and Claudia Tenney of New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain
the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently enjoys.
Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested
party. Tenny runs for office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either,
but the net result of all this is that American jobs and U.S. international security arrangements
through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know that is precisely
what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that
it so successfully feeds off of.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was
passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously."
The bill requires the State Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are
doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That
means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be a hate crime
and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans
don't play ball, there is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored
by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.
There is also a
Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of
2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him
or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill is sponsored by Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything
relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is
following the money.
And finally, the U.S. Senate has also
approved a resolution celebrating
the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous.
The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who
give snakes a bad name and about whom the less said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has
described himself as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes
long established U.S. government policy that the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by
Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any peace process with the
Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th
anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were
being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated." There is probably
even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, but I
will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle
East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,
but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit
about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it. He then went
to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
shouted at him for being a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That
is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no matter who is president. A few days later
the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the West Bank
since 1992, an action that they claim
is being coordinated with Washington.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess
he was right.
...Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a
rabbit hole where no crime actually has been committed but people's lives are ruined.
Gingrich said on "This Week" Trump has "a compulsion to counterattack and is very
pugnacious" even though that sometimes works to his detriment.
Gingrich said prosecutors may not find evidence of obstruction against Trump, "but maybe
there is going to be perjury. And maybe there will be – I mean, you go down the list and we
have been here before. We watched Comey [when he was deputy attorney general] appoint
[Chicago U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the godfather to Comey's children and
Fitzgerald knew there was no crime."
(Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of the name of CIA operative
Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband Joseph C. Wilson's statements about whether
Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Niger, contradicting the Bush administration. The
investigation resulted in Lewis "Scooter" Libby pleading guilty to lying to investigators.)
Gingrich said if there is going to be an investigation into Russian influence,
investigators also should look into a speech given by former President Bill Clinton for
which he was paid $500,000 and the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John
Podesta. who is a registered agent for a Russian bank.
"I'm happy to look at Russia's relationship. I actually think it would be healthy to
have congressional hearings on foreign influence peddling in the U.S. way beyond the
Russians. I think that's important for the future of our democracy," Gingrich said.
"No one, and Comey himself said this in his last testimony, no one has suggested that
Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding with the Russians. There's not a bit of
evidence he did."
Gingrich said hires by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller indicate he's politicizing the
investigation and Comey also should be investigated, a sentiment echoed by Trump attorney
Jay Sekulow on CNN's "
of the Union
"... One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast. ..."
"... As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive. ..."
"... The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing. ..."
"... New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result. ..."
"... It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases). ..."
"... When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination. ..."
"... I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics. ..."
"... Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil. ..."
"... No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020. ..."
"... Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about. ..."
"... So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. ..."
"... You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen." ..."
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
The New York Times
characterizes special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:
Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan
fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.
Let's fact-check the Times
Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was
"flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator
called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in
the anthrax case."
The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says
the whole thing was a sham . He
says that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were
"politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters".
Moreover, the anthrax investigation head
said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI's anthrax investigation
FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant
to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:
(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent
efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence .
Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and
FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt
. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which
were replete with material omissions .
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities,
including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very
least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy:
"Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting
records on every phone call made in the U.S.
On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller
told the Senate
We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database
to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an
individualized search .
Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of
the United States.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try
to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's
just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right,
unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations
to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something
that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation
and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak
whether we know it or like it or not ."
The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and
she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly
that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored :
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw
improperly serving hundreds of
thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on
citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed
not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did
"collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's)
FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the
other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up
the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI,
they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed
Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or
less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney
general at the time, James Comey.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the "
post 9/11 round-up
" of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York
City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what
seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number
of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting
terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year
despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had
no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos
and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the
night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his
side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11.
In addition, Rowley
says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence
Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like.
The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11
confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating
see this ).
Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI
informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the
Congressional Joint Inquiry
that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that,
when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him
in an unknown location . And
And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government
to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks –
points out :
Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence
out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded
in their effort.
Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status
quo and the powers-that-be.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called
"one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever
seen," Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want
him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak
out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't
tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly
Published on Aug 30, 2016
After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and
theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all the best facts and
evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the
crimes we witnessed on September 11th, and who ought to be investigated if
we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
People & Blogs
Standard YouTube License
Well of course he's an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of
this country, but he has done them for both parties; hence the 'above the
partisan fray' line. You can't be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead
bodies for both sides.
One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need
the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down
popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her
base and then was toast.
As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.
Driving down his popularity per se won't harm him. Even the elites
who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They need to
remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the
governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty by association
of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is
making Republicans fall in line with the establishment thus making way
for impeachment. It's their only hope and a long shot because the
Republicans will be committing suicide.
Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either
embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard or the
alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the
governing class without respect for party. Not that he will be
allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there's too much
money at stake from donors who bought the governing apparatus fair
Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is
destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without
much help from Trump's team. Both parties are under siege, which is
not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education,
energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining
the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.
Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a
new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The
policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump's
tampering may make them worse at the margins.
The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made
itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722.
Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the
Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.
New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing
It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a
country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of
"leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of
something? - erases).
It's going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class
might even double down on it; what we need is a
Zuckerberg, for example.
* I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there's a
I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly
hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really
blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of
his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign
policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to
enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is
determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.
Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has
shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's
the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.
" when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was
giving in to the establishment.".
No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide.
Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no.
Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national
exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020.
They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance
of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with the
Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out
of Cleveland still the nominee.
There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went
to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping
for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.
People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey
illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend of the People. And yes, the
real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.
And most coverups aren't Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent
bureaucracy covering its tracks.
Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not
"obstruction of justice," it is exposing the deep state's intense effort to
keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the
investigation is not obstruction, but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to
it's logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it's agenda.
Deep state's leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.
Here's an interesting run through of mueller's handling of the anthrax
investigation, among other things. A fun bit:
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so
the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose
handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted
letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When
the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd
"alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the
fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of
criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against
defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer
Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman
detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd
tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the
prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love
with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably
George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in
turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if
Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of
the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain"
they weren't making a mistake.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill
got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller / comey's dogged yet
severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.
Hold on had to open another roll to triple layer my tf
hat there that's better
If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the
legend and backstory to divert attention
Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed
and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the news folks busy
with filling the hole between the ads
Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans
and boeremag around and associated with him
And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys
after most of them had their "matter" dismissed
Mueller is there to keep trump in check the investigation will go on
and on and on feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a group of
"approved" insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some
pdf report before some major sporting event or just after some massive
news story on a thursday
"Bungling" a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to
unexpected further investigation
Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing
impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and then arresting
them as 'terrorists' in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were
keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.
I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.
Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the
FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he wants to. According to
Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also
pardon anyone, including himself! The idea that they are independent is a
canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been
This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual
crime, as opposed to a protracted "Trump won when he shouldn't have! Evil
Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a
secret handshake with Trump!" that has yet to do anything beyond
hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And
the reason firing the Watergate special prosecutor was obstruction of
justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed
by Congress and therefore really was independent.
To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that
there is justice to
obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian
collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis.
Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks from "intelligence officials" are not
enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.
"To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that
there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian
collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis"
Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the
gossip about Trump's actual net worth, perhaps he has been pegged as one
Democrats have gone from "Russia did something AND WE HAVE PROOF!" to
Maxine Waters admitting they don't even have evidence that any crime was
committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just
have 'connect the dots' and find actual evidence. This is some real
presuppositional crap here; this is the type of 'thinking' that liberals
are always mocking Creationists for. Over half of year with no evidence
that anything even happened isn't an investigation: it's a fishing
So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure
(golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election hacking,
dirty money, Jared ). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn
was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized ad hoc foreign policy
shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign
entities. Trump either
it since the
beginning of their relationship (and either didn't care, or winky-winky
greenlighted it), or
it when he later
found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the
investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to have any
rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a
separate issue (and is probably the case where Trump is concerned,
notwithstanding that he'll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting
convicted by the Senate).
Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I
don't see how it's clear what can have been "obstructed" or indeed
what "justice" might mean. (Rhe "Russian hacking" of votes, for
example, is so ludicrous it's pointless to discuss it, even if around
half of Clinton's voters believe it)
On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is
that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians, and The
Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as
"inconvertibly," I always look adverbs like that. All I can tell is
that great legal minds differ.
What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious
about 'Draining the swamp' in Washington – and the editorial offices at the New
P.S. I'm still reading Maureen Dowd's
The Year of Voting Dangerously
In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue of sellouts by major Democratic
Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it
looked like the 2016 election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The
catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved
Dowd's job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC's ruthless pursuit of power
with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course, Dowd's prodigious talent
as a writer) .
Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting
members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They're duly elected and
funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact
revenue for the winners. We hold elections to decide which businesses we
want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.
How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations
conclude? We haven't done that yet if I recall correctly. Would Pence be any
good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he
select a new VP then? (I don't know the answer to that one either) .
Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may
get us there.
Pence was not a very good governor but he'd be celebrated for looking
Presidential and not being Trump. He's also way more conservative and would
get far more bills passed.
The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They
are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather than actually
succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful
fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.
Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker.
Instead of giving voters til the next election to make up their mind,
they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election
being in the middle of summer instead of Nov 2012, and they lost because
a majority of voters didn't like the process.
If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to
be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.
Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if
anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP in order to get some
cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like
Ron Paul one might have thought there was a good chance he would "drain the
swamp". Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are
not exactly "draining the swamp". One couldn't submit to HBO a series script
with some general (affectionately lol) known as "Mad Dog" being the Sec of
Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of
which Soros is a visible element was not happy with Trump. It is possible
that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different
elements of the people who really decide things fighting. One clue is if
damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC
and Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie
suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did the
revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a
counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value? FDR said, if it happens in
the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you
get this kind hall of mirrors head confusion, then the CIA is at work.
Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to
grift. otherwise, there isn't that much difference betwixt the two. Hillary is
straight forward with her "scam." Trump uses Market strategy to con others .
Hillary uses whatever it takes to "get" and "enjoy" Power.
Trump's kind of business "men" hire media who enable the "Right kind" of
Calvanism/American "Thinking" which has bought Congress. These grifters "use"
whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price,
Everything is for sale to the highest bidder . outright theft, looting and
pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. "Whatever
it takes!," as someone said.
we could not foresee exactly what kind of "Grifter in Chief" Trump would
turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now 'ensnared" Trump as blowback
for "stealing" the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part
with her morally indignant, empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she
possessed "morals" to begin with.
Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it's all
out in the open, which lost her the deplorables' vote she didn't care about but
watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how
Americans are so easily "led/fooled" by the PR. Goebbels was just ahead of his
time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his "Role," proved how easy it
was to "sell' us out to Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many
elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork for the
absolute oligarchy we 'enjoy" courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder
Congress we see today.
we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet,
for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade a spade is how we got to
this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and
Corporate Republicans need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.
"For the many, not the few" is a belief we need here in America, too. though
Americans are still buying the self-hating PR so-called Leaders Thatcher, St.
Reagan sold. the young don't, however, which could promise a hopeful future in
England. maybe Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama
destroyed that "Dream" in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very much.
Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.
"Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay
above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for
independence and fairness."
So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
So he was "cultivating a rare reputation" as such?
OK: Does that mean for the NYT that "cultivating a rare reputation for X" is
what is it TO BE X?
In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.
(No wonder listening to Putin on Stone's movie is like listening to a
"... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication. ..."
"... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
"... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
"... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor. ..."
The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before
a Senate committee have come and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made
to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news); his GOP apologists and enablers employed
even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still green,
he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media
outlets reaped tons of ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time.
But as for the ostensible object of the exercise - learning more about possible Russian interference
in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding with this and/or
covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.
That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct
collusion between the Trump gang and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is
a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters, all of whom will of necessity have
some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang ties
of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's
inner circle in vote tampering exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence
services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking into Russian ties from many angles.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic
American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth
looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital
on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with
the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress
can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite
mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication.
Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance,"
the Trump White House and the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming
the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned, burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden,
far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through, in secret, a "health-care"
bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill,
consists of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage
for millions upon millions of ordinary citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.
And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going
to wage a fight to the death to prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're
not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural rule to derail the Trumpcare bill,
or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because the
Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting
a chance to vote on it in the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.
I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services
they used to rightly condemn for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder
and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention those of other nations.) And let's
put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel - even
though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible"
evidence of Saddam's WMD way back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash
genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly
admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in the
street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared,
"We came, we saw, he DIED!"
Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black
Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner
good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic
fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.
Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress
about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture,
who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush,
and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent,
unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.
Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward
the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone
who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades
- no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and
more often, an outright, active traitor.
Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is
to bring down Trump, then there is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant
criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now, keeping Trump and his whole sick crew
tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out the wazoo.
The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months
ago, for God's sake. You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like
Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of
Trump's criminal corruption would doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly
complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world": the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart
contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special arrangements,
the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in
warfare and diplomacy - in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade
maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors in the political-media class. If you start
to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows what else might
come undone, who else might be exposed?
We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy
deals and frauds he's left across a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick
jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful use of blathering idiocy on Twitter.
Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look there!
Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud
in scamming people out of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting
racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing on the galling spectacle of Trump's character,
while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident in both
the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's
dirty deals, but they never really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal
dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness of his character was the mainspring
of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption was
well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years
Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites
to bring Trump down without going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might
be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players in the political circus to lead a
multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you
really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the
extremists who are using him as their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach
would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible
proof of direct collusion in our hands.
But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the
Russians, who despite being genetically inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating
practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing
media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological
outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe
in which millions of people now live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their
prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and corrodes their sense of commonality
and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation
of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College
in the 18th century, and the vote suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state
legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters - had more to do with Trump's victory
than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.
Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to
our faces about yellow cake and aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who
wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who persecute the mentally ill for their
own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful
in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the
Kremlin tomorrow and brought Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to
happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has been done - and many more promising
avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands
But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite
list of "subversives" trumpeted in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually
even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible
source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously a Kremlin agent
or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know
people who still live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please
don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as
well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line every day fighting Putin's
tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims,
immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of
every stripe and finally come for the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel
Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with Russia in any way, or to question
the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives
for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive
So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome
- oh damn, I gave myself away again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised
to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with his tweeter four years from now while
Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.
But is not an analogy. What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook
on the subject.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the election, by discrediting already
discredited neoliberal establishment (Although, as any patriotic American, I strongly doubt they
can tamper as well as we can.)
But the set of steps we observed was the plot to appoint a Special Prosecutor, who later is expected
to sink Trump. After the Special Prosecutor was appointed Russia changes does not matter, and
more "elastic" charge of "obstruction of justice" can be used instead.
Also note the heavy participation of two heads of intelligence agencies (Clapper and Brennan)
and State Department officials in the plot.
Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the prolonged
investigations into alleged collusion with the Russian government and
obstruction of justice, which he says yielded no proof. One of the
tweets refers to his firing of FBI Director James Comey.
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man
who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt,"
sending users and media into a guessing game of what exactly he meant.
I am being investigated for firing the
FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!
"... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
"... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
"... super-patriot ..."
"... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
"... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
"... Undiscovered Self ..."
"... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
"... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper
who oversaw a "trust us" report, but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as
David Marks describes.
Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's
willingness to consider friendship and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional
For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual
distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally,
into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal enemy.
James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example
of how this antagonism toward Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in
a June 7 speech
to the Australian National Press Club.
"The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy
and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting
tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and
locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed the renewed arms race and resulting
tensions on the Russians:
"The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic
forces - notably their submarine and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments
in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite their economic challenges - with
only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."
That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms
and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary
and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that
he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.
A Shrill Voice
Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying
his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests
and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for
many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.
Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats,
for decades. His entire attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores
the context of the Russians actions.
Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president
Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted
the first known software attack on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel –
unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges. U.S. intelligence also has a long
record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer age.
But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers
and American political operatives were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing
of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.
Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992
has come from one of two domains: the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in
perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose the last ten presidents of the
U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight
into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."
With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing,
which has been dominated by people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks,
and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought Clapper from Air Force intelligence into
the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and an oil company
Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney.
Meanwhile, both Republican and Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions
from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks. And the U.S. intelligence
community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who
came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.
Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence
contractors have a powerful influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering
from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers drift between intelligence contractors
It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector
to do its bidding. Considering the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying
by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil and gas – as well as to the military and
intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary
of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.
Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S.
government exemplifies classic projection of the highest order.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28,
2015. (UN Photo)
In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data,
while ignoring the information that cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of
many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense of the greatness of the
United States. His ethics become situational.
As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security
Agency's massive gathering of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push
to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.
Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional
testimony by saying, "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."
Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as
he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted
his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really, in my view compared to what we're
Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that
allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot
who thinks he knows best what's good for America,
creature that the U.S. government seems to produce in quantity.
In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw
the key Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much
public evidence, he released
a report that amounted to "trust us."
Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence
in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did
acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by
"handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies as had been widely reported.
So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state
representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those
who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive
process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce.
In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the
state of the human mind and how it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic
is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like the neurotic, sees his shadow in
his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty
to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate
the outward eye and prevent it from looking at the individual life within.
"We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is
the significance of that split, symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves?
What will become of our civilization and man himself, if the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if
the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"
Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.
David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films
for the BBC and PBS, including Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi
Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.
mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm
Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes
obvious. One does not need the authority of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front
of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded to ignore the reality
all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to
clear a space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness,
only those things one's conditioning permits can be seen.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am
If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe,
come here and read this, they are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change
for the better or they are still smart enough to understand it and are laughing all the way to
the temporary bank.
If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line
with the immutable Universal laws of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one,
at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of the lesson that one just isn't learning
at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation to
continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary
wake-up call in all it's required force.
Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep
down inside, that we are all equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions,
we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve and it would behoove us to accept
our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am
These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed
Kennedy, but they weren't. They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation
of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation. I guess that Hoover had so much
dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous
menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads"
of these traitorous agencies their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read
of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy photos, that these maniacs actually
practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what kind
of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring
us to the brink of nuclear war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail
public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage and destroy his reputation unless he
commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding "American"
values. They are sick control freaks.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm
If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the
early 21st Century, then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction.
The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper
to give evidence after his blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee.
The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative body? What a crock of shit!! Who
was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm
then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction
Ooops: That should be "under fiction."
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm
And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or
least untruthful" manner.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am
I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall
for? It really shows his utter arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for
lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness of believing there is "equal
justice for all" in the USA.
Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am
Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's
august Senate by British MP George Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005,
on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. His absolutely devastating
verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't
seen it online.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the
mounting tensions –
Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send
a pile of copies to Clapper. That guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear
or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably "clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz
he's been imbibing.
Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm
I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear
unhinged, deranged, absolutely stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are
they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the only thing in which the US leads
the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud.
Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia,
without a single word of criticism from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US
stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe
this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for
a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had to say. Too few people realise
how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am
I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night,
depending on your region.
Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
airdates.tv at last resort in the future
Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.
john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am
Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests.
The removal of Trump is essential to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish
about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies and make believe. They all wanted
Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she
won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran
bu now. War makes money so any one who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has
to be got rid of.
Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development
of this Russiagate fiasco, as former head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that
allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right that the whole bunch of
the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of
days ago about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's
what passes for entertainment nowadays. Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published
articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily Star, also The Guardian,
and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when
human development was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually
it is regressing.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am
Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks
he's a god.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am
So far he seems to be getting away with it.
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm
"Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee
has raised the anti-Russian hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US
political police denounced supposed Russian interference in the US elections as a dire threat
to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on
behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the
principal enemy of the United States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the
US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions funneled into the US elections by
Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people .
the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most
powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the
bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the foreign policy offensive
against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since
the 2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign
are particularly incensed that Russian intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy
civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation. They want to see Assad
in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred
of Putin indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies,
the Democratic Party and the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony
scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:
Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote
totals were altered. No ballots were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic
campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful information was supplied anonymously
to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee had
worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall
Street audiences and reassured them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of
the big financial interests
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and
the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after
eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation, wage cutting and austerity
that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality
[The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history,
from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."
Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street
and the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure
Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter
who p!ssed off Israel firsters. Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.
G² , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies
are so chaotic?
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently,
anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn
what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel
of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which
checks and balances are implemented to reign in the retired general?
Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am
Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?
Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying
for the US to control the universe
Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript
and printed it out.
In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you
that my dashboard warning
light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community,
very concerned about
the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else
we knew the Russians
were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians,
who (are) typically, ALMOST
GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
So we were concerned."
(Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing
Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the
Russians did it' meme.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am
That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct
group of people Chuck Todd would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth
in the grand American tradition.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am
no way to bold that statement
There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At
the end type "/strong" inside but not the quotation marks shown in this example.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am
Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am
The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things.
The beast they feed is the same beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted
the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars. If you recall last summer the
DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the
2001 unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department
so far this 21st Century that no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much
coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending this nations well earned
capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling
and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.
"Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants
who may have been looking into the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald
Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am
This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like
it, like building #7. Nice of you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.
When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who
could answer them. Yet, questioning any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you
a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these days over things such as
assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you
being a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am
Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question:
Why didn't that high rise tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in
NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more intense? It wasn't just a localised
burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is not
more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely
crack than steel girders will melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in
on this one.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm
My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel.
The smoke will get you before the fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a
hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.
Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and
if a proper investigation were conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone
with half a brain.
If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because
the guy is a physicist/mathematician who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned
the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking at it. He couldn't believe
what he found.
Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does
not lead to symmetric collapse. It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically
because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents
order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason."
"Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not
fly off to the side, hundreds of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally.
There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise it would just fall down to the
ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."
The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse
Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention
of it to my wife, commenting to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist
how many others had the same thought, as you and I.
Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am
Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website,
but I had not seen that video with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that
production never shown on American television? Why was NIST so remiss in its analysis, as the
narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never be
admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in
50 years when all the blame can be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that
will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never changes.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am
Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to
motives and means of the WTC collapse. The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns
and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel fire exceeding their melting
point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.
Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as
I have observed myself. When a single failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the
additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design. When those are also much
weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This
is called "progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft
fuel would soon cause the entire floor to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.
Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral
failure across the whole floor would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically
until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload all columns below that, causing
the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was
uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.
Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner
"bearing walls." When part of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse
but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing structure are asymmetrical and it
falls partly to the sides.
As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London
fire), it is the concrete that provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the
steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength against bending loads (wind and
earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its
curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure
survives a fire sufficient to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive
Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.
But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not
permitted in the US or under the International Building Code so far as I know. It should have
had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers to suppress non-petroleum fires,
non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent"
fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction,
maintenance, and enforcement practices, if not in the building code itself.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am
It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes
of the WTC fire, and that Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate
large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do not know what happened there.
I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would
have prepared a distinct method of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not
impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked other structures with the aircraft.
Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to wait
until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any
buildings did not correspond to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.
So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and
I have seen no convincing photos or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos
that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent with the aircraft-only model.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am
I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved
in the aircraft attack. But without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating
the sources of the aircraft attack.
We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was
grown by US warmongers attacking the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another
Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more to be learned about US/KSA/Israel
involvement that we may hope will be exposed.
backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might
have bought (maybe) what you just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists
at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse initiation stage is because they
KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the
fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to
one side. No way it would have come straight down.
Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse
of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes, it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions."
I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it
there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is going
to know the difference?"
I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah,
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm
I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for
the long posts above, and do not object to anyone else's views on this.
1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe
floor 3 or 6, none of which show any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must
have been to lower floors.
2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across
an entire floor, while the only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts
from their prior collapses.
3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn
that structure if security required. I do not know about this.
But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower
collapses that suggests controlled explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:
4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and
5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with
chunks and dust thrown outward from the collapsing sections only.
6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That
7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the
falling structure as it comes down just to create that appearance, and would use many times the
explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning
floor had collapsed due to explosions instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor
could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could such a system have been
controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw
the results when a fuel truck overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors
high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge in the 1970s (no casualties).
10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly
fuel tanks; no doubt that has been estimated.
11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't
supply heat as fast as an intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the
steel cooling the heated portion.
Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril
of the fittest or survival of the least fit, both very apt in our era.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security"
budgets and "justifications" for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more
than two birds were killed with one stone .
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name.
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm
I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm
To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.
Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining
fuel burned up there would be no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never
any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated with the WTC. If any temperature
melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and
isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which
is certainly not consistent with the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest
no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out) and nanothermite residue were in
Why do both?
The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon,
not just the WTC. The "plane crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down
the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter.
Let's not make assumptions about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to
contrived to nonexistent.
Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment
on the subject here. Discussion about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse.
I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter to their own satisfaction
george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am
Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001
UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am
It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing
body parts for the big oil adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations
and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and lottery computers we can have an economy
again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror and
new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You
can't afford it.
Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over
what's left. Nothing is left now. News isn't fake, the money is.
mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am
I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal,
"yes, I lied, but it was for a good reason!"
Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about
Russia starting the war in Georgia. That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am
mej – you're right.
Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am
Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say
of Russians shows in fact we're looking at ourselves.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am
Let me put it another way;
We're not going to return kind for kind,
we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
Good luck .
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am
Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would
discharge him from his office immediately.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead
of being thoroughly discredited for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually
brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.
He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words
up. "This man is at the end of his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't
realize grandpa-types can deceive too.
Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's
one or the other. Now he's off to pollute Australia.
"In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University
(ANU) National Security College in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national
security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership
Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.
In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance
or disrespect', called the firing of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an
'internal assault on our intuitions'."
The asylum has taken over.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am
The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power
in a big way. These are glory days for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what
they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media, both major political parties,
and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump.
The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized
rabble, no match for the forces arrayed against them.
It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment.
He just doesn't have the resources to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.
Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete
unhingement of a segment of the American population who have no rational understanding of what
happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is
not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for the
madness unleashed in the US.
In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome:
Refusal to Reason is the New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of
Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident: "Trump is a traitor. Trump has
destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central
Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is
presented looking like Trump and will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated
by plunging knives.
This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge
mentions that social media has become a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the
population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible this could happen simply
because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity
behind the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver
Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin. Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin
is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming unnerving and I have a
strange sense of foreboding.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am
Rationality will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves
of emotional madness will be important.
Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am
As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:
"Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent
of world domination. Since the USA have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.
"The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia
does oppose to what passes for democracy in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not
the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially: blatant racism, dividing
the world on übermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy
and open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the
reason for the Hague tribunal, while children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one
gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors, suffering and deaths of civilians
and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.
USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really,
all 7 billion people, not just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys
into their transparent lies and double standards.
For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy.
And we'll see how it turns out. So far the human history teaches us that every time the übermensch
eventually break their necks and diminish.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am
Yes. Good comment.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am
Thank you for saying all of this.
MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am
""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our
democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."
I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with
but to deepen the discussion.
Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality."
Powerful forces in the US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the
beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet
Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their power) is
the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking
over the world and dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical
slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil. We see the results
of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has perpetrated against
the rest of the world sense WWII.
Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those
countries trying to be neutral are just as evil as the others.
All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally
superior to the rest of the world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less
Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter
of millions, is no longer the fundamental guiding ideology.
You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am
Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am
You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are
doing it for the trillions of dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less.
Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe to explain to us why we have
to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.
. By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated
from Spain had struck deep roots in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and
Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures as a rationalization for his
crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with
the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution
so readily precisely because they were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its
root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described in the book of Exodus,
the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from
political oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible,
and as history progressed the secularization of the concept would progress as well. But the total
secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally useless to the
Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It
meant substituting the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy
in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction
which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired by
the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated
him. They needed the example of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose
campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable to extermination because the Puritans
saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved
to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the
Jews had, on direct orders from God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,
"with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied
no models for warriors contending with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests.
Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in their hearts and the sword in
their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans:
the Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and
Joab routing the foes of their country; and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous
house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every verse of the books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed
for them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear
while they trusted in God. Oliver Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed
the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered the attacking heathens; or
to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."
Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am
"Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend
"Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in
a similar destructive process"
Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community
too much credit. There is no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their
own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware of their self serving actions and it is
motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion of
propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am
Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their
own black hearts allow themselves the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in
a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe" their own shit even while
knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.
Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people
who follow and post on CN are opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the
world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance of the US, and you say comes from
Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting point
when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We,
the dissenters in the US, have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult.
And your good points from Russia are written in a clearer way than many Americans could even write,
since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down" the citizens.
But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as
you must know are certainly not fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters
so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with the native peoples who opposed
the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically
because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way
to stop the failing empire. We have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's
even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the 1990s tried to destroy Russia.
But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin
accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the
I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge
to the USA, knowing that US cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in
fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant and arrogant that Americans are
not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points
you have made, thank you.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am
Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be
dominated or destroyed. Capitalism is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence
of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus said in Plato's Republic,
"Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations,
and is the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's
struggle to dominate others. The ultimate goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate
everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God over everything! When Ayn
Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more
accurately "required") by nature to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land,
resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they do everything in their power
to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by
conflating the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom
and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent
"god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in conventional wisdom not
only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.
Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the
public into subordinating their own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle
hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces back to our earliest recorded history.
But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery for so
many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.
Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long?
Ah, yes, the principle of "divide and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained
amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another rather than challenge them. So much
easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible to assault
and steal from him than from the lords at the top.
I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions
and meager rewards. They are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a
few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital idea! And how we are fools for
not seeing the obvious nature of things.
Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying
it through history by the Roundheads and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old
Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth lackey, USA. The OT god is
a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really
do believe in end times.
Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
"complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and
promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other
theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government
actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.
"However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption
that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough
so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office
of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences
if caught were worth the risk.
"In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds
little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.
"While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation
with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria
and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself
presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in
Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a
record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.
"It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President
Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being
faithfully executed by President Trump."
US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
By Ulson Gunnar
I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's
incredibly difficult Piano Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the
orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet
he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was one
of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned
to Russia. The government of the USA is very, very sick and evil.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm
David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.
DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote
to me: "There's no reason to give the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies
towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures only the favored voices are
heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the
fact that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous
feats that are widely publicized in order to give him a superhero reputation these things are
not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I were in Russia, I could/would
write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side,
the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.
Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem,
rather than the people in general. The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear
the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the sum of history and it's hard
to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear
of communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists
and US oligarchs, we might have seen what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the
militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides from the Stalin era through
the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners
in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed
to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.
If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms,
defense, etc. (and of course no social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would
happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and we will never know what the outcome
might have been.
My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep
some balance, I avoid the pressure to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of
the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured to see conflict as a sports
event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by
extension the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs
of both sides bring conflict to a head by lying to us about everything, helping us believe we
can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply a great example of these
beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am
Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other
powers, because they need a foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors
of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every large group, the US failure to protect
democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia has
a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation,
This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally
selected some rulers of present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by
excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot find better ways to protect democracy
from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree
with what I felt was your leaning over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although
it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation, there are sides to be taken,
and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious
and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number
one disaster for everyone alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here.
To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired of trying to point out the obvious
to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you
in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too
concerned with being "even handed" for my taste.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm
David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm
always floored when I hear these guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when,
if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other country is just trying to
defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?
I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the
U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But
for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like warlords, and it's just nice
to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.
Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member
said about Russia. The US bureaucratic leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house
in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's no way to make exact comparisons
between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also
many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially
hypocritical since the US still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate
number of them in prison after not even giving them opportunities as the whites. The US has a
lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to attack others
and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am
Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness
with respect to gay rights, there is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly
every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United States.
I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree
with all of your points about Clapper, he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter.
As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation of the nefarious covert
operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging
from satanists, Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment,
you address a very under reported issue, which I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this
stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight the communists.
I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that
is too sensitive to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love
to more of your ideas on this subject.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am
Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations.
This is the truth that is, just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very
clearly, the central story of the past century.
Thank you for saying it so well.
Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things.
Telling the truth might see you ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize
the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.
Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected
to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am
"The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy
and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi
lover McCain. We in Aus really are pathetic grovellers.
Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am
This nails the anti Russia movement
Why the Elites Hate Russia
1, Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote
control, like it is most countries. The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":
Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying
the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement
released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office said two branches of Soros' charity
network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would be placed
on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable"
by the Russian state.
2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright
military conflict. Some other BRICs however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's
military – it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military. And that's not
AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:
3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be
internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French.
. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.
While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild
interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries,
like Germany for instance.
Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country
for all its vaunted proclamations about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of
prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down economically so many harbor
Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited
its citizens for military service when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge
number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend whose son-in-law has to finish
his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted
in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes
wasted money. I suspect Russians have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't
be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.
Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am
Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron".
I never get a hit. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None
even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate. The parallels are astonishing:
a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon)
and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round
and then discredit Fillon, in the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted
with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in the second round, thereby allowing
Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story
before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's
arms before the vote. In a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit
Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell into a trap he had set for them. The
matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public, one
Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is
therefore established that Russians, whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia
or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought to rig the French presidential
election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James
Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.
Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am
Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?
Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a
Rothschild banker, he appeared as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New
World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated by the wealthy. Obama endorsed
Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports
the neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched
the wealthy wherever it is employed. Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems
as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought in, hired as wage slaves,
the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are
making inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have
lied in the past about domestic surveillance; he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations
first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know they did it
(although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest,
the most bizarre thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you
put yourself in the same category of absurdity.
TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years
with no end in sight the American public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back
to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into supporting more guns. Econ 101
.. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?
J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which
he, along with Brennan, Comey, and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction
of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews with Megyn Kelley and better
yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President
Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.
Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable
reputation. Many describe him as a "
hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong
military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an
emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said
on the campaign trail.
Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built
up a reputation as one of the most
conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently
describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is
a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and
push an activist social conservative agenda.
He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the "
global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a "
clash of civilizations
" strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.
But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis
on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W.
Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded,
bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.
It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency
also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade
regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an
about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence
may reverse many of these pronouncements.
In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign
policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the
military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor
H.R. McMaster and the
economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary
Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists
and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely
return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.
A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery
rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional
form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for
intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.
These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war
or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political
career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.
"... According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects. ..."
"... Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ): ..."
"... If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying. ..."
"... They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today. ..."
"... Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did. ..."
"... Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent. ..."
Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President
Donald Trump of "playing the swamp's game" in governing. advertisement
According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in
taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation
had taken on other aspects.
Limbaugh argued although he was playing "the swamp's game," he had other tools at his disposal
that he has yet to use.
He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There's nothing stopping him from doing
it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds
to go to Rosenstein and say, "Look, this investigation can't be wide open for anything. You've
gotta limit what these people can look for. You've gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes.
You can't have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records.
There has to be a limit."
He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And
if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, "There's no way he can
do it," they're talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel's been
named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed
to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.
If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that
happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that
once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain
the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's
getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying.
And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional
inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government
- the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending
quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.
They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood
legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges
are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against
various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place
These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous
executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch.
The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to
take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said,
"We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love
Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And
Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's
in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the
executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The
built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special
counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality,
the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there
is designed as a deterrent.
But he could still do it. It's not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It's
pure politics. And it's the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the
swamp's game right now. And that's not what Trump was elected to do, and that's not what Trump
wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp's game. I think the effort to get health care passed
in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to
get legislation passed.
Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people
that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine
'em, you cajole 'em, you beat 'em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed,
exactly the way it's always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up
not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because
it was "all swamp all the time."
Now, you might say, "Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp's the swamp. There's no other way to get
a bill passed. The president's not a dictator." I understand that. But Trump has many more tools
at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn't say that. He's got more tools at his disposal
than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch
Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn't gotten close to utilizing
it. It's just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked
that Trump is under investigation. You've heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes
us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of
Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn't a shred of evidence even now,
folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel
looking into financial - there's no evidence of anything. It's a wild good chase.
Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation.
If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time
we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay
in the media, don't misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what's happening. But he could do it,
is the point. Now, he won't probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of
But the idea that he's been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under
investigation, and at that time we didn't even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into
Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have
known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost.
Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that
way as well.
But he didn't. Why? He's new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the
things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded
in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all
come together. I'm sure that's what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that 'cause
they don't want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.
"... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
"... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16
WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday,
using an early-morning Twitter rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!"
and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding inquiry into Russian influence
of the 2016 election.
Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared
to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called
a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation
after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the
FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that
was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.
"Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.
The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the
White House and its allies to undermine officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even
as the Russia investigation proceeds.
The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling
senior positions and increasingly at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong
feud with the government's intelligence agencies.
Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness
and uncertainty, with some expressing hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing
whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed in each district after
Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.
In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered
firing Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal
lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United States attorney for the Southern
District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich,
an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed
at destroying" the Trump presidency. ...
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption
that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law,
and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness
is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit
For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice,
democracy, and human rights conveniently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections;
coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian
government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate
aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race
bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in
Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the
shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars
launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment
of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is
no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American
hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
"... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption
that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic
order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit
For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy,
and human rights conviently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination
plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala,
the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns
in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink
of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South
Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many
of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of
the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,'
torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration
of the US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no
such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony
over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American
American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of
the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.
The FBI won't be publicly releasing any memos that ousted FBI director James Comey wrote about
his conversations with President Donald Trump because they might interfere with an ongoing investigation.
... ... ...
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said to Russian officials
in the Oval Office the day after the firing, according to a
New York Times report . "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller,
BFF of fired FBI Director James Comey, was appointed strictly as an "independent" counsel to probe
alleged "collusion" between Team Trump and the Russians – and
a plant to bring down the
president – you can stop thinking that.
to the disgusting
on Wednesday – the day Republicans were scrambling
for their lives on a baseball field in Northern Virginia – published a story claiming that Mueller
is looking into
obstruction of justice
charges against President Donald J. Trump.
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is
interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination
of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct
a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian
meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump
campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial
crimes among Trump associates
, officials said.
The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was
fired on May 9
, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has taken
up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that
his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
Of course, this could all be
just a coincidence
, right? After all, there's nothing
to the appointment of a
to investigate this president (again and again and
again) who just happens to be a former FBI director himself
and best bud
of the guy who got fired right?
It's not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last
week, right? Oh,
Well, call us conspiracy theorists, but yeah, it sure seems like this has all been a set up to
get our president from the outset. And now the Deep State has all the pieces in place.
If this sham is allowed to proceed, there is only one logical outcome: The finding or, actually,
more correctly, the
of "evidence" that Trump somehow, acting in his constitutional
role as head of the Executive Branch, did something improper to someone at some point when he, you
know, tried to run the Executive Branch.
Constitutional experts have been saying for weeks now there is no
, when it
comes to obstruction. Or anything else Trump and his administration have been accused of doing even
after, as the Post reminds us, a
, in which hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars have no doubt been expended.
But not one dollar has been expended investigating
. Or all of the leaking – from the Justice Department, intelligence agencies and
the White House. Weird, huh?
As the president has said repeatedly – and said again today – this is a "witch hunt." It's actually
worse than that; this is the Deep State's effort to take out a duly-elected president simply because
they fear that he will do what he campaigned to do, drain the nasty, infested, incestuous swamp in
which they swim.
It's time to band together to support the president. He will need it in the months ahead.
Update [12:30 CST]:
It should be noted that following Comey's Feb. 14 private
dinner with Trump, in which the president allegedly said (Trump has denied it) "I hope you can see
your way past" the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the former
that he believed the president was ordering him
to drop the investigation (which Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, has a constitutional right
to do). Only after he was
by Trump did Comey turn around and then claim the president
was attempting to "obstruct" him.
As to the Post story, something stinks about it. Consider that in
the president he wasn't under investigation again – and he
have been had their
been alleged "obstruction of justice." And yet, as the Post stated, Trump did not come under investigation
for obstruction until
Comey was fired.
Trump had actually
the Flynn and Russia investigation halted,
halted – and the president would have followed up on such an order to
ensure the investigation was shut down. As Donald Trump Jr. notes, when dad gives an order, there
is no ambiguity; everyone knows it's an order:
There is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're
not going to let him spoil their party
( National Sentinel ) Globalism:
We already know that President Donald J. Trump's message of "America first" has rattled the world's
globalist elite, as past American leaders have allowed them to feed off our success and drain jobs,
opportunities and treasure from our country while they distribute that wealth to
other countries, so they can control them. Globalism today really is nothing less that colonialism
from past centuries, only writ large and done with dollars, not military divisions.
In any event, Trump's nose-thumbing of the G7 leaders' agenda and his [reported] plan to pull
out of the Paris Climate Accords may be a bridge too far for the world's elite, many of whom are
meeting in Chantilly, Va., this week – an event
to which Trump did send representation .
As reported by The Guardian , the secretive Bilderberg annual gathering of the world's
governing and industrial elite "will include a 'progress report' on the Trump administration," and
no one is sure if he'll get a passing grade.
So, perhaps, Plan B is taking shape.
reported "exclusively" by InfoWars (yes, we know, but read on anyway), that plan may consist
of "overthrowing" Trump in an extreme, last-use tactic to thwart his agenda, if talking to him and
convincing him to abandon it (which he can't do because he'll lose reelection) doesn't work:
Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see
their agenda as being in "deep trouble" and that Donald Trump poses a "dangerous" risk to the international
order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.
Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information
ahead of time as to the real agenda behind the confab, not just the vague
list of topics released
officially by Bilderberg.
Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail
both is very much the primary focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.
One Bilderberger told the site that since Trump is "dangerously obsessed" with upsetting and derailing
the current world order, it may just be that there is no other way for the globalist cabal to protect
its interests than deposing, or helping to depose, a U.S. president who, for the first time in decades,
isn't dancing to the same sheet of music.
Globalists are baffled as to Trump's "erratic" style of governance and are panicked that he
could undo decades of work they put in to build the new world order.
However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought to his senses and taught "how the world
really works," a line that is typical of the arrogance that has come to epitomize the attitude of
Bilderberg members over the years.
Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders from Bilderberg, the only recourse
left for the elite will be to turf him out of office.
Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be impeached, but only if Democrats regain
control of Congress in 2018, in which case his days are "numbered".
If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of 2018, globalists are confident that
any effort on behalf of his administration to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and any other
globalist treaties will be thwarted.
As of this writing Trump has yet to formally announce he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris
accords (or declare it a treaty and send it to the Senate, where it won't be ratified). But clearly
there is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're
not going to let him spoil their party.
Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia "President
Donald Trump nominated
Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on
January 13, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017"
On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein (who had been put in charge of the Russia probe as soon as he was
confirmed, because Attorney General
recused himself after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his contacts with the
Russian ambassador when asked about those during his Senate confirmation hearing)
Mueller as a
counsel to conduct the investigation into "any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
President Donald Trump" as well as any matters arising directly from that investigation.
Rosenstein's order authorizes Mueller to bring criminal charges in the event that he discovers any
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein sees no reason at this point to recuse himself from
overseeing the special counsel's investigations involving President Trump and the 2016
presidential election, the Justice Department said Friday.
Looks like in the last Presidential elections voters faced Faustian bargain (A deal in which one
focuses on present gain without considering the long term consequences): Crazy neocon warmonger,
vs. Republican variant of "bait and switch" artist Obama.
The only two candidates who were to some extent promising "in a long run" (Sanders and Rand
Paul) were eliminated before the final round.
As the result we got what we deserve as brainwashed by neoliberals and neocons lemmings. So
Trump is not a problem, he is a symptom of the much larger problem: the crisis of neoliberalism.
In a way, he is punishment for our neoliberal sins.
Many people voted for Trump in a hope that he will end the neocons wars. They were deceived
and now keep their heads low: