Do the US intelligence agencies influence the US Presidential elections?

Now the story unfolds that three FBI Mayberry Machiavellians prevented Sanders from becoming the candidate from Democratic Party and delivered the victory to Trump, rigging the US Presidential elections. And they enjoyed the support of Brennan and Clapper in their  attempts to prevent the elections of  Trump.

News Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump Recommended Links Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal How FBI swiped under the carpet Hillary Clinton email scandal James Comey role in preventing election of Sanders FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and DNC leak saga PeterStrzok and Strzok-gate Steele dossier
FISA Memo scandal FBI contractor Fusion GPS FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and very suspicious DNC leak saga CIA hacking and false flag cyber operations Coordinated set of leaks as a color revolution tool Susan Rice Michael Flynn removal from Trump team Andrew McCabe Rosenstein role
CIA hacking and false flag cyber operations Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections Brennan elections machinations "Seventeen agencies" memo about Russian influence on elections Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit Special Prosecutor Mueller and his fishing expedition Vault 7 scandal DNC and Podesta emails leak and  subsequent false flag operation to  blame Vladimir Putin FBI Mayberry Machiavellians
Anti Trump Hysteria in MSM NeoMcCartyism The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Alexandra Chalupa role in fueling Russiagate Ukrainian Security Services role in Spygate (aka Russiagate) Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite MSM as an attack dogs of color revolution  Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"
History of American False Flag Operations The Real War on Reality Control of the MSM during color revolution is like air superiority in the war Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few MSM as fake news industry Media as a weapon of mass deception Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Two Party System as polyarchy Frustrated underachievers
US and British media are servants of security apparatus Nation under attack meme National Security State Media-Military-Industrial Complex New American Militarism Color revolutions      
Bernie Sanders betrayal of his supporters The Deep State The Iron Law of Oligarchy Principal-agent problem Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Skeptic Quotations Politically Incorrect Humor Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy

Introduction

The natural tendency of intelligence agencies (like financial institutions) is to escape civilian control and in turn try to control the government. So after a while tail is wagging the dog. The temptation of get themselves involved in determining or at least facilitating the most favorable result of elections might be too strong to resist and FBI was involved in this since Hoover days. 

There are several facts which suggest that employees of CIA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), sympathetic to the neoliberal/globalist wing of Democrat Party (Clinton wing), used the power of their offices and (with the assistance of foreign nationals) tried to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain information to prevent the election of Donald Trump, to collect "insurance" -- compromising materials on him in case he win, and  after his surprise win, to provide a basis for his impeachment and removal from the Office by forcing on his  administration the Special Prosecutor.

From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions are protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.

In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of the Constitution. That is the definition of National Security State... The basic scheme of the most recent intelligence  gambit in this area was as following: using Steele dossier for obtaining FICA order for wiretapping Trump team, launching Russiagate investigation of Trump team under false premises, creating "17 agencies memo" to damage Trump, unleashing MSM Russiagate hysteria,  dismissal of Comey (sacrificial bishop), Comey leaks to NYT, Rosenstein appointment of the Special Prosecutor Mueller with a very wide mandate, fishing expedition in order to force Trump to resign or impeach him

When we dig deep into the Russiagate, we will find that is fought by very influential group (including belong already known FBI "gang of three", some senior figures in CIA, Justice Department, MIC and Wall Street, all of whom are profoundly interested in continuation of the existence of global neoliberal led by the USA empire. 

And they are ready to fighting for this lucrative for them personally goal to the last American, excluding, of course, their own families. On the other side of this battle are much weaker forces which understand that the USA needs to retrench and  revise neocon foreign policy, and regroup concentrating on solving internal economic problems coursed by outsourcing and rampant offshoring of manufacturing first.  They also want to stop or at least downsize the imperial wars that cost a lot of money, but often do not provide tangible benefits or even worsen the USA geostrategic position. Essentially those wars for remaking  Middle East and the expansion of neoliberal empire facilitated semi-alliance of Iran (81 million people), Russia (144 million people),  and China (1.4 billion), which despite being very fragile is a real threat to the USA hegemony.

Published evidence suggests that there were at least four intelligence organization were possibly involved in rigging the US Presidential elections (by pushing Sanders under the bus and then trying to install Hillary on the throne): 

  1. FBI ( Hoover was the pioneer of intelligence agencies interference and collecting dirt of politicians to survive.   Now it was Brennan, Comey, Clapper and probably some other highly place officials via control of Hillary Clinton email investigation and initiating surveillance of Trump team.
  2. CIA (Brennan probably via FBI "gang of three" and also via the level of control of the MSM, Stele dossier and 17 agencies memo). In the past CIA chief Allen Dulles is viewed by many as the person who might be  instrumental in FDR murder.
  3. MI6 via Steele Dossier and possible help with surveillance of Trump Team and Trump tower.
  4. NSA -- via intercepting Trump team communications and participating (although via selected by Brennan few analysts) in "17 agencies memo".

All other including Mossad, Russian intelligence services, as well as intelligence agencies some European countries other then Great Britain ( Ukraine, France, Germany, Italy, http://theduran.com/ukraines-collusion-with-hillary-clinton-to-meddle-in-us-elections-now-exposed/)) as well as Asia countries ( Pakistan (Avan brothers), KSA, China ) were probably the second league players. Although Pakistan-related story of Imran Awan is really interesting in its own right due to his connection to Debbie  Wasserman (of DNC email scandal fame) and fall out of this classification. 

Looks like sometimes foreign intelligence agencies were used as  outsourcers/subcontractors to do work for CIA (possibly in case of Steele dossier and spying on Trump),  sometime  they might  provide some important  information that helps to discredit one of the candidates (although during the last election Trump was in their hairlines, most of them probably got a lot of information against Hillary due to Clinton foundation activities as well as her amateurish and completely incompetent  "private" email server setup, see Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal  )

A probable scheme of pushing Sanders under the bus

Sanders would definitely became Democratic Party candidate if Hillary was charges with "gross negligence" for her "bathroom" email server.  As of December 2017 we have some information that the "gang of three" (Comey, McCabe and Strzok) conspired to swipe the dirt under the carpet and exonerate Hillary from any wrongdoing.

Probably not without direct pressure from Justice Department  and indirect from the President Obama.

It is now  probably provable that Sanders was deprived the position of Democratic Party candidate in the last Presidential election cycle due to activities of FBI.  In now way Hillary could became candidate if she  would have been charged with "gross negligence". And this charge was 100% provable.

The most probable scheme of color revolution against Trump

Much  of this like with JFK assassination is hidden and might surface in a decade or two. Currently we know very little. The key elements  of this scheme  at the center of which is Steele dossier cutting are as following: 

The basic chronology might be as following (partially based on Stefan Molyneux YouTube  presentation):

  1. [Aug 01, 2014]:  Brennan caught spying on Senate torture probe. John Brennan Faces Calls to Resign After CIA Admits to Spying on Senate Torture Probe - Democracy Now!
  2. [Mar 02, 2015]: Hillary Clinton emailgate scandal broke lose. NYT reports that "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act"
  3. [Jun 13, 2015]: CrowdStrike was financed to the tune of $100 million by Google Capital. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party. (Stefan Molyneux)
  4. [Oct ?? 2015]: Fusion GPS became key anti-Trump player -- the dirt digger.  During the Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.[1] Please note that  Christopher Steele at this time is not yet in the picture. This will happen six months later when the investigation became funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[21][22][23]
  5. [Mar ??, 2016]: Fusion GPS supposedly approached the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie offering to continue their opposition research into Donald Trump in return for payment.[Wikipedia]
  6. [Apr ??, 2016]: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee used lawyer Marc E. Elias to retain and fund Fusion GPS. At this time Christopher Steele came into picture, may be via his ties with McCabe and FBI activities to derail Trump.   In April 2016, the investigation contract and funding were taken over by Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. Elias was the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign.[6] In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, and used by them to produce the dossier.[24] Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS has stated that Steele did not pay to any of his sources.[25][Wikipedia]
  7. [Apr-Jun, 2016]: Wikileaks obtains something like 53,000 [DNC] emails and 17,000 attachments
  8. [Jun ??, 2016]:  After Wikileaks possession of leaked emails became known, a cover-up operation was started by DNC and Clinton campaign. The decision was made to used Russia as a scapegoat for the leak accusing  them in hacking. False flag operation using Crowdstrike was staged to make this plausible.  Dirty former MI6 officer Christopher Steele (who was expelled from Moscow for espionage more then 20 years ago and as such is a "person non grata" in Moscow) and his company Orbis Business Intelligence are hired by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s possible connections to Russia. This company previously was used to Statement from Christopher Steele: “Between June and early November 2016 Orbis was engaged by Fusion to prepare a series of confidential memoranda based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the US Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump.”
  9. [Jun 9, 2016]: Entrapment plot against Trump Jr. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort attended a meeting arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (the client of Fusion FPS) supposedly for opposition research on Hillary Clinton, but Veselnitskaya instead focused on the opposition to the Magnitsky Act. President Trump's Outside Counsel Mark Corallo later remarked “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”
  10. Crowdstrike investigates DNC leaks and promptly attributes it to Russians.  FBI is deprived of any access to factual information and uses Crowdstrike findings. After very damaging for Hillary DNC leak (iether  by Seth Rich or some other disgruntled DNC staffer) which proved corruption of DNC and the plot to deny Sanders any changed to become Democratic Party candidate, as well as the level of control of DNC by Clintons,  the decision was made to blame Russia for the lean (using Crowdstrike which has connections both with CIA and FBI as well as Clinton team) and use Trump connection with Russia to undermine the prospect of his election. The CrowdStrike attribution are not independently verified as the DNC refused to turn over its equipment to the FBI. . The connection between CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie should raise additional questions. (Stefan Molyneux)
  11. [Jun 14, 2016]: Russiagate smear campaign against Trump was launched in by major US MSM. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump" which reported: “DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.” “That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called [CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry], whom he has known for many years. "Within 24 hours, Crowdstrike had installed software on the DNC’s computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how. " Charging good money after the horse has left the barn; it's funny that clearly political action of  "attribution" (qualified cyber adversary like CIA leaves zero traces in such cases or deliberately leaves false traces ) is hidden under tech jargon -- my God, a "super sophisticated" system was installed that now, when intruders are long gone will truck them ;-). From presentations available on YouTube Crowdstrike are typical security snake oil salesmen promising  a lot but delivering very little (much like ISS in the past).   It is impossible fully compensate for architectural flaws of Windows without imposing "military base" regime which is unacceptable for organizations like DNC. Moreover good adversary would use Crowdstrike software for perpetration much like CIA used Kaspersky software in the past. 
  12. [Jun 15, 2016]: Crowdstike  published its finding on thier site. Dmitry Alpherovidh blames Russians in his article Bears in the Midst Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee »
  13. [Jun 15, 2016]: A blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.
  14. [Jun 26, 2016] Bill Clinton has a 30 min meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. The encounter took place ahead of the public release Tuesday morning of the House Benghazi Committee's report on the 2012 attack on a US consulate in Libya.  the meeting looks like a quid pro quo of "protect Hillary and you'll get a new great job Loretta under Hillary administration"...
  15. [Jun 30, 2016] The new about the meeting reached MSM. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said on The Mike Gallagher Show that the meeting was “so terrible” and “one of the big stories of this week, of this month, of this year.” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tweeted: “Lynch & Clinton: Conflict of interest? An attorney, cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict.” LA Times. Later it became known that Loretta Lunch instructed Comey to call Hillary email scandal "a matter".  During May 2017 testimony  James Comey, that it marking the moment he decided that the Department of Justice was not capable of an independent investigation into Hillary Clinton. The moment Comey lost faith in DOJ's Clinton probe - CNNPolitics
  16. [Jul 02, 2016]:  Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Peter Strzok, who gave her special "HQ treatment". The interview lasted approximately three and a half hours and was not conducted under oath. No transcripts of the  meeting exist.  Later Hillary Clinton claimed that she gave a "voluntary interview" to the FBI today regarding her email arrangements while she was secretary of state. James Comey admitted: Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was the turning point in the email investigation.  Business Insider Director Comey claimed that she did not lied to FBI during this interview. Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton, nor did he talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. While there was no recording or full transcript of the interview, there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress.
  17. [Jul 05, 2016]: Comey hijacks the role of Justice Department role and exonerate Hillary. At this point  email scandal was swiped under the carpet. No criminal changes were filed. Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
  18. [Jul 06, 2016]: Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case based on the FBI’s recommendation. Justice Department formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges - LA Times. Atty. Gen Loretta Lynch said she had met late Wednesday with Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation.
  19. [Jul 10, 2016]: Seth Rich was killed.
  20. [Jul 22, 2016]: Wikipeak published leaks emails and  attachments. A cache of more than 19,000 e-mails was leaked on July 22, 2016.
  21. [Jul 22, 2016]: Another false flag operation to implicate Russians ? Major MSM report about previous unknown hacker going by the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" who claimed on a WordPress-hosted blog to have been acting alone in hacking the DNC. Might be a false flag operation by rogue elements of the US intelligence services, a part of effort to implicate Russians in DNC leak. 
  22. [Jul 24, 2016]: It became clear the DNC has thrown Sanders under the bus, but the role of FBI is depriving him from being Democratic Party candidate still remains hidden. Sanders urged Wasserman Schultz to resign following the leaks and stated that he was "disappointed" by the DNC email leaks, but said that he was "not shocked. In reality he was robbed in daylight. But not only by  Wasserman Schultz but also by the "gang of three at FBI who essentially prevented his nomination by swiping the dirt about Hillary Clinton handing of classified emails on the private email server under the carpet. Peter Strzok supposedly played outside role in this fateful decision. But that became known only in December 2017.
  23. [Jul 25, 2016]: Democratic Convention 2016 opens in at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia  Hillary became the  Democratic  party nominee. Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to reside due to her role in derailing Sanders candidacy. Sanders switched  camps and endorsed Hillary Clinton instead of fighting her nomination.  As Trump sarcastically commented  about Sanders endorsement of Hillary: 'Bernie is now officially part of the rigged system': Trump unloads on Sanders for 'selling out,' says it's like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs  Donald Trump unloads on Bernie Sanders for 'selling out' Daily Mail Online
  24. [Jul 25, 2016]: The FBI announced that it would investigate the DNC hack.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] (Wikipedia aka Ciapedia ;-)
  25. [Jul ??, 2016] Steele dossier reaches FBI. Steele, on his own initiative, supplied a report he had written to an FBI agent in Rome.[23] His contact at the FBI was the same senior agent with whom he had worked when investigating the FIFA scandal.[11] By early October 2016, he had grown frustrated at the slow rate of progress by the FBI investigation, and cut off further contact with the FBI.[21]  At this point Steele dossier got to the desk of Peter Strzok, adamantly anti-Trump FBI official with strong links to CIA and probably personally Brennan. 
  26. [July ??, 2016] Crowdstrike attribution is used for increasing the scope of vicious anti-Russian campaign was launched in the media with the full support and encouragement of Obama administration to swipe the dirt about DNC pushing Sanders under the bus and Clinton emailgate scandal as well as the problem with Hillary health.
  27. [Aug 25, 2016]: Brennan  makes the "all in" move adopting a highly political role and endorsing Steele dossier: according to NYT reports, CIA Director John Brennan briefed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on , and alleged that “unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.” (Stefan Molyneux)
  28. [Aug ??, 2016]: Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. 
  29. [Sep ??, 2016]: Steele, following instructions from Fusion GPs briefed several MSM. On Sep 23, 2016 Yahoo News published an article about possibilities of ties between Carter Page and Kremlin.
  30. [Sep ??, 2016] Following a report from the Daily Mail in September 2016, Weiner was investigated by the FBI for sexting with a 15-year-old girl. His laptop was seized and emails related to the Hillary Clinton email scandal were found on it, causing a controversy late in the presidential election. On May 19, 2017, Weiner pled guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor. His wife, Huma Abedin, filed for divorce prior to Weiner's guilty plea. In September, he was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. On November 6, 2017, Weiner began his sentence. (Wikipedia)
  31. [Sep ?? 2016]: FBI applied to FISA court to establish  surveillance on unknown number of members of Trump team (at least Carter Page) possibly using Steele dossier as a pretext.  Looks like rogue elements in FBI used "Steele Dossier" to obtain court order for wiretapping  some members of Trump team such as Carter Page (Strzokgate). With the dirt explicitly planned to be used as "insurance" in case of Trump victory.
  32. [Sep ??, 2016]: FISA warrant was authorized against Page, just after he left the Trump campaign (WaPo).
  33. [Oct 7, 2016]: Damaging for Trump "17 agencies memo" surfaced. This "17 agencies memo" was cooked by Brennan (with possible support of Clapper) by using small pre-selected team of "analysts" (in which probably Peter Strzok played the leading role) and presented as the view of the whole US intelligence community. On October 7, 2016 . On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking )
  34. The 17 agencies memo was used for amplification of the anti-Russian campaign in MSM. Neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA reached high pitch.
  35. [Oct ??, 2016]: The FBI reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work. Looks like  the agreement never materialized as Steele was unable to provide the necessary verification for his claims.
  36. [Oct ?? 2016]: [Wikipedia propagates questionable info about how David Corn got the dossier, in view of role of Top FBI Lawyer Who Was Demoted Now Linked To Leaking Bogus Trump Dossier to MSM] On instructions from Fusion PGS Steele personally compiled 33 pages and passed on what he discovered so far to the anti-Trump reporter David Corn from Mother Jones magazine.[26][Wikipedia].  On Dec 22, 2017 it became known that another possible source was not Steele but FBI Lawyer  James Baker  who communicated with David Corn at this time and was demoted later for the leak.
  37. [Oct 28, 2016]: Due to the pressure from NYC FBI office who uncovered Comey announced that the investigation into Hillary "bathroom" email server is resumed based on new emails uncovered in probe into Anthony Wiener sexing scandal (which actually were available to FBI since September, so "why now"? ). FBI reopening investigation into Hillary private email server - Business Insider.  Strzok was assigned to conduct the investigation with predictable results. But the problem with this announcement is that it was made just a 10 days before the elections and violates the notion of "quite period" before election where such news should not be released.  Looks like Comey has second thoughts after throwing Sanders  under the bus.
  38. [Oct 31, 2016]: In the clear attempt to prevent election on Trump rabid Hillary Clinton supported David Corn, a Mother Jones reporter, leaked the existence of the Steele dossier A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump – Mother Jones. This leak can be viewed as a countermove on the Comey announcement, which damaged Clinton campaign:

    Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”

    The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was “shock and horror.” The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. “It’s quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on,” he says.

    “This is something of huge significance, way above party politics,” the former intelligence officer comments. “I think [Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well.”

    The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, “I have nothing to do with Russia.”

  39. [Nov 06, 2016]: WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13] (Wikipedia), This was another deliberate attempt to influence an election as this should be a "quite" period" for such things.
  40. [Nov 06, 2016]:  FBI closes the investigation of "Wiener's laptop copy of Hillary Clinton emails". FBI chief James Comey told leaders in Congress hours earlier that a review of 650,000 emails discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner had reinforced his July 5 decision to let her off the hook. FBI will not change decision regarding Hillary Clinton's emails Daily Mail Online
  41. [Nov 09, 2016]: Trump was elected in a surprise victory over Hillary Clinton in a stunning repudiation of the establishemnt .  United States elections, 2016 - Wikipedia
  42. [Nov 10, 2017]: After Trump election massive NeoMcCartyism was launched. Any contact with Russian officials were deemed criminal and the betrayal of the country.  
  43. [Nov 17, 2016]:  Retired general Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was appointed as the national security adviser. Trump appoints Michael Flynn as national security adviser report - NY Daily News.

    Like Trump, Flynn sees a military ally in controversial Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he was seated next to at a banquet in Moscow last year. Flynn has also appeared several times on the state-owned TV station, Russia Today, which the U.S. State Department has accused of being a mouthpiece for Putin.

    ... ... ...

    Flynn's convention appearance puzzled many generals he had served with, as it broke their unofficial code of not picking sides in presidential races.

    Flynn gained further notoriety when he retweeted an anti-Semitic tweet that said, "Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore." He later apologized for the retweet, claiming it was a "mistake."

  44. Obama administration engaged in fierce campaign of "unmasking" the result of surveillance of Trump team in which several members of its administration participated (Susan Rice in primary role).  With the goal of discrediting Trump team and specifically removal of Flynn from the team.

    However, there are 20 high-ranking officials within the U.S. government who have to power to approve requests to reveal those identities if they deem that information is necessary to understanding the value of the intelligence. That process is called "unmasking," and Rice had the authority to do so while serving as national security adviser.

  45. [Nov 18, 2016]:  Sir Andrew Wood, British ambassador to Moscow from 1995 to 2000, met with U.S. Senator John McCain at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada, and told McCain about the existence of the collected materials about Trump.[28] Wood vouched for Steele’s professionalism and integrity.[29] In early December, McCain obtained a copy of the dossier from David J. Kramer, a former U.S. State Department official working at Arizona State University.[27] On 9 December 2016 McCain met personally with FBI Director James Comey to pass on the information.[28]
  46. [Nov ??, 2016]: McCain got the dossier and spread it within Washington circles. 
  47. [Dec 09, 2016]: President Obama ordered the entire United States Intelligence Community to conduct an investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. election — and provide a report before he leaves office on January 20, 2017
  48. [Dec 29, 2016]: Obama makes his last New Year present to Russia a fuels Russiagate hysteria. He expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized Russian property in the USA under the pretext of Russia  influencing the US Presidential elections. Along with 17 agencies memo that fueled further neo-McCarthyism campaign again Russia and damaged Trump team. [46][47][48] (Wikipedia)
  49. Another entrapment plot -- this  time against Flynn: Attempt of Flynn to limit the damage of the this move later were used for Flynn removal from the Trump team.  All his conversation were wiretapped and later leaked. In a way this was entrapment  as the conversations were recorded. later the recoding were used first to oust Flynn from Trump team and later by Mueller to  indict  him on technical charge of lying to FBI to get additional dirt of Trump.
  50. [Early January 2017]: a two-page summary of the Trump dossier was presented to President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump in meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Christopher Steele - Wikipedia
  51. [Jan 10, 2017]: Steele goes into hiding.
  52. [Jan 10, 2017]: Just  before inauguration, Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed.  Clinton claimed to be unaware and unconnected to the event.  [Wikipedia]

    On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".[32][33] Following the CNN report,[34] BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier that it said was the basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him.[35][36][33][37] NBC reported that a senior U.S. intelligence official said that Trump had not been previously briefed on the contents of the memos,[38] although a CNN report said that a statement released by James Clapper in early January confirmed that the synopsis existed and had been compiled for Trump.[39]

  53. [Jan 12, 2017]: Obama's EO12333 expansion made sure that whatever anti-Trump information got picked up by the intelligence community could be spread widely, and would be hard to trace it back to an individual source .  See also Obama Expands Surveillance Powers on His Way Out Electronic Frontier Foundation
  54. [Jan 20, 2017]: Trump inauguration was accompanied some protests like is common in color revolution scenarios, but is atypical for the US inauguration. They did failed to achieve the necessary scale in order to serve as a "trigger for further disturbances" nessesary to trigger further color revolution protests. There were no charges of policy brutality.  Only 217 protesters were arrested.  Trump inauguration protest damages parts of downtown Washington - CBS News

    The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses, destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles. Police used pepper spray to diffuse the situation.

  55. [Jan 21, 2017]: Campaign for Flynn removal from Trump team started. After inauguration dirt of several member  of Trump team was surfaced  and first of all on general Flynn (who was important link to intelligence agencies in Trump administration) General Flynn served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014. The fact the Flynn lobbied Russians to take more consolatory stance on Israel actions and not to retaliate for expulsion of 35 diplomats will become known much later. At this time his meetings are presented by MSM as a clear collision with the direct goal to discredit him and remove him from the team.
  56. [Jan 23, 2017]: Was this connected with Trump team wiretapping? Robert Hannigan, the director of GCHQ, has resigned from his job as head of one of the three Government intelligence agencies after just two years. GCHQ would only say that Mr Hannigan had left his post for "personal reasons" and that he was not sacked or subject to disciplinary proceedings. He had been director general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office before that. At the time he took on the job, GCHQ had been forced onto the defensive following the leak of information about mass surveillance by Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee. GCHQ boss Robert Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just two years
  57. [Feb 13, 2017]: The first victim of Russiagate -- former general Flynn was forced to resign from Trump administration.
  58. [Mar 04, 2017]: Trump complains  about British MI6 surveillance on him and members of his team. White House does not know if alleged surveillance of Trump was by wiretap US news The Guardian
  59. [Mar 07, 2017]: Steele suddenly and unexpectedly emerged form hiding. Former MI6 agent behind Trump dossier returns to work UK news The Guardian
  60. [Mar 22, 2017]: Politico published an article entitled "Nunes claims some Trump transition messages were intercepted" reporting: "House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election." Immediately Nunes get under fire and gets investigated.
  61. [Apr 2, 2017]: Mike Cernovich claimed that Susan Rice was identified as the person who unmasked members of Trump transition team.
  62. [Apr 5, 2017]: Susan Rice unmasking frenzy was confirmed. What you need to know about Susan Rice and the unmasking controversy - ABC News
  63. [May 8, 2017]: Comey was fired by Trump.  Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited politically from that inquiry and had once praised Mr. Comey for his “guts” in his pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign
  64. [May 9-May 17, 2017]: The "appointment  of the special prosecutor" gambit was launched.   After the success with the removal of Flynn (who might still have good connections with Military intelligence as as such  was especially dangerous for plotters appointment of the special prosecutor gambit was engineered. The included usage of Comey as sacrificed pawn and was supported by the atmosphere of  NeoMcCartyism already created in the country and rogue elements in the  Department of justice.
  65. [May 16, 2017]: Comey leaks information was published by NYT. Which was a deliberate criminal act on his part as such memos belong to the government. the idea was to trigger the appointment of the Special prosecutor and it worked. Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation - The New York Times

    Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

  66. [May 17, 2017]: Rosenstein appoints Mueller as the Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump-Russia connections and possible Russia influence on the elections.  With the indirect goal for force Trump resignation: shortly before Mueller was interviews by  Trump for the position of the director of FBI and was rejected.  Now Comey destiny as a leaker of government information hinged on the results on Mueller investigation. And they are long  time friends.  Mr. Comey revealed for the first time that he turned over memos about his conversations with Mr. Trump to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
  67. [May ??, 2017]: Mueller took his task to provide a pretext to depose Trump seriously  and hired rabid anti-Trump prosecutors including Peter Strzok and Andrew Weissmann  (whom NYT called Mueller’s Legal Pit Bull) creating witch-hunt that paralyzed Trump administration.  As if it is difficult to find less biased competent  prosecutors in this country. In other words Mueller cards were revealed. 
  68. [Jun 8, 2017]: During his testimony Comey before before the Senate Intelligence Committee Comey admitted to be the source of leaks to media which triggered the appointment of the Special Prosecutor by Rosenstein, but  refused to answer question about FBI role in propagating and financing Steele dossier. Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time that the FBI. was investigating Trump team but personally Mr. Trump. .    Comey Testimony The 8 Big Questions James Comey Refused to Answer
  69. [July ??, 2017]: Arrest of Imran Awan and possible role of Debbie Wasserman Schultz in organizing private spying on the members of Congress for the benefits of DNC and Democratic Party. 
  70. [July 20, 2017] FBI finally produced text messages from Strzok to Lisa Page that Horowitz office requested. Those texts uncovered by Inspector General provided ample information about the level of his bias against Trump
  71. [July ?? 2017]: Peter Strzok his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page leaves Mueller team
  72. [July 27, 2017]: Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about Peter Strzok text messages to Lisa Page
  73. [Aug ??, 2017]: Peter Strzok was quietly removed from the Mueller investigation and demoted in FBI.  Neither Rosenstein, no Congress were informed.
  74. [Oct 18, 2017]: Three Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth in response to subpoenas to testify before the House Intelligence Committee dailycaller.com

     "In August, Simpson, the point-man on the dossier project, met with the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours. That meeting was held after Simpson and Fusion threatened to plead the Fifth in response to a subpoena threat from the Judiciary panel."

  75. [Oct 21, 2017]:  Fusion GPS that financed Steele dossier asks court to stop lawmakers from seeing financial records
  76. [Oct 25, 2017]: It was revealed that Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS. Hillary Camp Paid For Fusion GPS Steele Dossier – FBI Covered Steele’s Travel Expenses, The WaPo article claims the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS dossier alleging Russian ties with the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and sordid phony personal smears of Trump. The Post reported that Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $168K to continue researching Trump after a Republican donor who originally funded the research pulled out in April 2016.The Clinton campaign and the DNC continued to fund Steele’s research through the end of October. The Dirty Truth About the Steele Dossier Vanity Fair
  77. [Nov 6, 2017]: Flynn was indicted by Mueller team along with another hapless staffer. Business Insider  The indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive.
  78. [Dec 1, 2017]: Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI. He was previously entrapeed by Peter Strzok and charged with lying to FBI. This move by-and-large was viewed as a desperate attempt of Mueller to survive under the barrage of revelations about Peter Strzok. And it suceccededed. Mueller probe survives althouth he personally from this point was discredited as a partisan hack (which he was since 9/11). 
  79. [Dec 2, 2017]: Information about Peter Strzok removal comes to light and the texts between him and Lisa Page were disclosed. FBI Agent Kicked-Off Mueller Team for Anti-Trump Messages - Breitbart
  80. [Dec 7, 2017]: Bruce Ohr, Top DOJ Official, Demoted for Ties to Fusion GPS, Trump Dossier. Information that Steele was also directly in touch with high level Obama’s Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and that brse Ohr wife worked for Fusion GPs in anti-Trump research comes to light.
  81. [Dec 10, 2017]: Suspicions about the anti-trump plot within Justice Department and several intelligence agencies including FBI were openly voiced during Congressional hearings. The "insurance policy" email suggested the existence of a conspiracy within the FBI to rig the Presidential Election. During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say:

    Here’s what I think — I think Peter Strozk (sic)… Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he’s the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats’ campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets

  82. [Dec 11, 2017]: During his interview Michael Morell  admitted the existence of the plot to remove Trump within intelligence agencies. Conservative Daily Post
  83. [Dec 17, 2017]: BBC became really alarmed at the perspective of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate FBI and/or reopening the probe about Hillary Clinton email server which can expose the role of British government in Steele dossier saga (Trump-Russia inquiry- Why attacks on Robert Mueller are mounting by Anthony Zurcher ) :

    All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.

    Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to do that.

  84. [Dec 19, 2017]: One of the central figures in "anti-Trump putsch" within Justice Department and intelligence agencies Andrew McCabe was  grilled for seven and a half hours by House Republicans in Russia meddling probe - Washington Times “I’ll be a little bit surprised if [Mr. McCabe‘s] still an employee of the FBI this time next week,” Mr. Gowdy told Fox News in a separate interview. Washington Times. Now it looks like there is investigation of Mueller collision with the "FBI gang of three" along with Mueller investigation of Trump. this became rteally convoluted but the  degrees of freedom for Mueller were severy cut now.
  85. [Dec 20, 2017]: Several other key figures connected with "insurance policy" email  are expected to testify under oath to House intelligence committee.  The list include Ohr, his wide, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
  86. [Dec 22, 2017] More than 170 House Democrats signed a letter supporting Mueller this week, and Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, took to the floor of the Senate on Wednesday to warn that ousting the special counsel could spark a constitutional crisis.
  87. [Dec 22, 2017]: Top FBI Lawyer James Baker who was recently demoted was linked to leaking bogus Steele Dossier to MSM. The GOP sources said the documents — made available recently to lawmakers by the Department of Justice — revealed that James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel, communicated with Mother Jones reporter David Corn in the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election. Corn was the first to report the existence of the dossier on Oct. 31. Top FBI Lawyer Who Was Demoted Now Linked To Leaking Bogus Trump Dossier to MSM – True PunditTrue Pundit
  88. [Dec 23, 2017]:  Andrew McCabe announced his intention to resign from FBI in 90 days (when he can get full pension). Trump sarcastically commented on this decision in a twit.
  89. [Dec 26, 2017]: Damage control efforts and attempt to regroup and save Mueller skin in view of Peter Strzok role in the Hillary email server investigation and pushing Steele dossier started. NYT tried to lower the expectations about year and half "Russiagate" investigation by rabidly anti-Trump team does not provide enough information to change President with "collision" (BTW there is no such rime in Us criminal codex). Now NYT pleads "give me  dirt, any dirt on Trump" The End of Trump and the End of Days - The New York Times:

    Fury isn’t strategy, and there’s no need to extrapolate beyond the facts already in our possession. Take the inquiries into the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. They could screech to a halt tomorrow and we’d be left with more than enough evidence of corrupt business dealings, conflicts of interest, shady back channels, awful judgment and outright lies among Trump’s intimates to present voters with a powerful case against his fitness for office.

    But by obsessing over clear “collusion” and insisting on visible puppet strings by which Vladimir Putin controlled Trump, we have set the bar dangerously high. Mueller’s ultimate findings could be plenty ugly and still be deemed underwhelming.

A possible role of Brennan and CIA

Under the smoke screen of Russian hackers we probably more complex picture which might include attempts of at least two of the US intelligence agencies (specifically CIA and FBI; most probably CIA via FBI) to influence the elections.  The role of Brennan in this whole story is still a mystery, but recent hearings does not inspire any confidence in him and methods that he used (John Brennan, Obama loyalist and CIA director, drove FBI to investigate Trump associates - Washington Times).

It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama’s, who provided the information — what he termed the “basis” — for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer. Mr. Brennan served on the former president’s 2008 presidential campaign and in his White House.

Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. Mr. Brennan did not name either the Russians or the Trump people. He indicated he did not know what was said.

... ... ...

Mr. Brennan, who has not hidden his dislike for Mr. Trump, testified he briefed the investigation’s progress to Mr. Obama, who at the time was trying to aid Hillary Clinton in her campaign against the Republican nominee.

... ... ...

But Mr. Brennan’s May 23 testimony shows that it was his actions that drove the FBI probe.

The dossier was financed by a Clinton backer and written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele. He was hired by Democratic-tied Fusion GPS in Washington.

Mr. Steele’s 35 pages of memos were first circulated in late June. In mid-July Fusion passed around another memo that made the most sensational charges. “Further Indications of Extensive Conspiracy Between Trump’s Campaign and the Kremlin” was the headline.

It could well be that the role of Steele dossier might be create a pretext of using total surveillance on Trump team on the part of FBI. Which was a pretty devious plot, indeed.  And they are real specialists in this area due to their track record of implementing color revolutions in various parts of the globe, and, especially, in former Soviet Union and its former satellites. 

Unprecedented rate of hacking of emails of officials around the globe is really disturbing. but in the USA it might well came not so much from external as internal sources, including possible false flag operations.  Intrusion onto political process happened before. One telling example is JFK assassination.  Interference in foreign election is also a proven fact: CIA role in "fixing" Italian elections of 1948 is a historical fact. 

Tensions between CIA and Pentagon is well know due to events in Syria, where they sometimes found themselves on the opposite sides of barricades. So Military intelligence might well play restraining role on CIA and probably, not accidentally,  General Flynn got into Trump's team (BREAKING CIA Director John Brennan Targeted General Flynn and Sean Hannity For Surveillance):

GotNews’ Chuck Johnson went on to explain the feuding history of Brennan and General Flynn…

The motivations for Brennan’s dislike of Flynn date back years. The two had publicly feuded during Flynn’s time as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Flynn was producing intel documents that showed how the supposed Syrian moderates were actually assets of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Brennan also brought in disgraced Syria analyst Elizabeth O’Bagy to brief the CIA. O’Bagy was outed by this reporter for manufacturing her credentials and for being paid by the Syrian rebels. O’Bagy worked for the defense industry funded Institute for the Study of War, a neocon think tank headed by the Kagans, a controversial family which advised David Petraeus. Petraeus was brought down. Intel sources I’ve spoken to believe Brennan was behind his ousting.

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou discussed John Brennan’s “deep-seated hatred of Trump” and decision to make “Russian intervention… the hammer he is going to hit Trump with.” “Flynn has been screwed by the agency in the past and Flynn has had a difficult personal relationship with Brennan,” Kiriakou said in January. “Even though Brennan is gone, the CIA is still being run by Brennan’s people.” Both Flynn and Trump called for reorganizing the CIA –- a direct threat to Brennan’s remaking of the CIA.

Brenna also have had a peculiar relationship with Obama, who most people would expect should be very vary of CIA and its influence on White House and Congress (heonce mentioned that he does not want to became another JFK). But on the contrary,  "in the 67 years since the C.I.A. was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan."  (Obama and Brennan):

Obama is not Brennan’s puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction between the White House and Langley “after the release of the scorching report,” Brennan having “irritated advisers… by battling Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year.” They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release, suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that this is NYT, an astonishing statement: “But in the 67 years since the C.I.A. was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation’s war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency’s own struggle to balance security and liberty.” What they don’t say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency’s struggle to balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty, a no-contest battle.

... A parallel aside, CIA and NSA, both on Obama’s watch, joined at the hip in one important respect, their sphere of unrestrained activity, contempt for Constitutional oversight, and connivance in the latter by the president, adding up to a state-within-the-state signaling the wider potential for totalitarianism in America.

...Ron Wyden (Dem., Or.), like Udall, a strong critic, here, of NSA, stated that “the dealings between spy agencies and their congressional overseers were crippled by a ‘culture of misinformation.’” Wyden, the year before, caught Clapper in a flat lie about “whether intelligence agencies were collecting any bulk information about Americans,” Clapper saying “they were not,” and later, “he had to apologize for that answer

There is also always some level of inter-fighting between different US intelligence agencies, for example NSA vs CIA.

Connections between Bush clan and CIA are well documented. Strange biography of Barack Obama also raises interesting questions. And Clintons also seems to be connected to the US intelligence one way or the other due to their Arkansas past.  Amazing level of confidence of Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent Hillary Clinton)  that he/she is above the law might well be connected with this fact. 

In this sense anti-Russian campaign and accusations of Russia in interfering into the US election (after the US interfered in Russian election of 2011-2012, trying to stage a color revolution in this country)  might be just a smoke screen.

Also it is not clear why Russia would prefer Trump to Hillary. Here is one post that addresses this issues (Economist's View What’s Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism Maybe the Economy, Oct 14, 2016):

likbez -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.

As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions."

Hillary&Obama has had a bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation.

They also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.

But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictate the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)

The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.

Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into the second John McCain on a dime.

Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of prisoners of the position they want so much.

Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will be very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very stupid moves.

Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.

In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.

So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.

In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.

A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might learn the lesson.

But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians have on her , as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.

And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate her position as POTUS.

In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.

As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.

Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.

Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease, which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a person with HIV; http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/) that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).

I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.

The way Trump "lewd" tale (aka Steele dossier) surfaced also creates a lot of questions about role on intelligence agencies in the elections. Same about Trump surveillance authorized by Obama administration as well as possible unauthorized surveillance outsourced to MI6. God knows what information "friendly intelligence agencies" provided the USA if and when requested, and the hypothesis that such requests were made, circulated in the media and have a lot more credibility then Steele dossier ;-) 

That fact the CIA personnel was spying on Senate Intelligence Committee is an established fact (Is CIA Spying on Senate Intelligence Committee ) If so, were other senators, or political candidates with view  that are opposed to  view of CIA on important issues, or Obama himself, or several of his official are immune from being watched  ?  From  this point nobody is off-limit.  

See also Brennan and Clapper Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review

The role of Obama Justice Department

Recety it was revelased the

The House Intelligence Committee plans to compel testimony from a career Justice Department attorney who met during the election campaign with the writer of the infamous unverified Trump-Russia dossier.

The committee has learned that Bruce Ohr, an associate attorney general, not only spoke with dossier writer Christopher Steele but also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele with Democratic Party money.

“Pursuant to the House Intelligence Committee’s prior subpoenas and information requests, the Department of Justice should have provided the committee with information on contacts that DOJ official Bruce Ohr had with Fusion GPS representatives and Christopher Steele.,” said committee chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican. “The Committee will issue a subpoena to Bruce Ohr for information on this matter.”

 

The committee is investigating Fusion’s financial arrangements, including the reasons for paying three journalists. It was Mr. Nunes’ first subpoena for Fusion bank records that forced Democrats to admit that the party and Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the dossier beginning in June 2016.

The dossier has taken on immense importance. The FBI relied on it in July 2016 to begin an investigation into the Trump campaign and any collusion with Russia over the hacking of Democratic Party computers. It relied on the dossier to obtain at least one eavesdropping warrant on a Trump associate.

The dossier contains salacious material and allegations of collusion against President Trump... 

 

We also have Loretta Lynch tarmac story and her recommendation to Comey to call Clinton email investigation "a matter".

Rabid unmasking campaign by Susan Rice during the last days of his administration

Susan Rice was involved in a very suspicious campaign of unmasking the results of wiretaps of Trump transition team and campaign during the last days of Obama administration

In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.

Here’s Lake:

In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.

This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.

And here’s another inconvenient fact for Democrats: despite Susan Rice requesting and apparently receiving raw intelligence regarding the Trump team, the Democrats have been unable to substantiate any allegedly nefarious activity between Trump’s people and foreign adversaries. Which means that the only scandal here is the apparent targeting and leaking of names from the Trump team in order to smear them by high-ranking Obama officials.

There’s another question that requires an answer, however: why didn’t Trump merely declassify this material as soon as his White House found out about it in February? Why attempt to channel it through Nunes?

 

The role of Obama himself

Obama was pressed by US intelligence  agencies to react and at the last days of his administration fueled promoted by Intelligence agances (and first of all by Brennan and Clapper) Russiagate witch hunt by ordering (supposedly relying on Brennan's 17 agencies memo and other flaky evidence) 35 Russian diplomats to leave the USA and seizing of Russian property.  Please note that after proved attempts to stage a color revolution (nicknamed White revolution)  in Russia in 2012 election circle (to prevent re-election of Putin) and Snowden revelations Obama really looks like that the pot calling the kettle black. Here is how neoliberal (and rabidly pro-Obama and Hillary Clinton) Guardian described this witch hunt (Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for US election hacking, Dec 30, 2016)

The Obama administration on Thursday announced its retaliation for Russian efforts to interfere with the US presidential election, ordering sweeping new sanctions that included the expulsion of 35 Russians.

US intelligence services believe Russia ordered cyber-attacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton’s campaign and other political organizations, in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump.

In a statement issued two weeks after the president said he would respond to cyber-attacks by Moscow “at a time and place of our choosing”, Obama said Americans should “be alarmed by Russia’s actions” and pledged further action.

“I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners,” Obama said in the statement, released while he was vacationing with his family in Hawaii.

“Using this new authority, I have sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.

“In addition, the secretary of the treasury is designating two Russian individuals for using cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information.” He also announced the closure of two Russian compounds in the US.

Obama added that more actions would be taken, “some of which will not be publicized”.

... ... ...

Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the international affairs committee in the upper house of the Russian parliament, was quoted by the RIA news agency as saying the US move represented “the death throes of political corpses”.

The Twitter feed of the Russian embassy in London, meanwhile, called the Obama administration “hapless” and attached a picture of a duck with the word “LAME” emblazoned across it.

One guardian reader asked an interesting qurestion:

Grrrant 29 Dec 2016 16:47

If Putin can influence the result of elections why did Ukraine get a pro Europe President in 2014?


geneob 29 Dec 2016 16:47

Remember the Maine.... Gulf of Tonkin... Russia hacked the election.
 

Obama just can't assept that  clinton wing of Democratic party looks like an Ayn Rand clique compared to the Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950s and that election of Trump singnigy the crisi of neoliberalism in the USA (and deep crisis of the civil society, see Neoliberalism and Christianity) , not so much Russian interference (which probably was a magniture less then Izraile, GB (stele dossier) and KSA interference to mane a few).

A common attitude of British public was aptly expressed by kriticon:

kritikon 29 Dec 2016 16:46

1. It's a last ditch petulant political move by Obama to discredit Trump. Which is pointless as it'll be like water off a duck's back. Trump's already made noises that he wants to thaw out relations with Russia..which is one of the few sensible things he's made noise about.

2. If Russia did indeed hack the DNC...far better to not put yourself in a position where you can get caught out, no? If your party does things that will discredit you...either make sure your security is up to scratch or even better...don't do the sneaky things in the first place. If the Dems were clean the Russians wouldn't be able to discredit them. Obvious.
3. Obama waits 8 years to do anything? This is the very first time Russia has done anything naughty in 8 whole years? Really?

4. Don't shit in the pot when it's still on top of the cooker. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Grenada, Cuba...in fact pretty well the whole continent of S. America...the US has never interfered in anyone's internal politics themselves?

Trump may be an orange moron, but Obama hasn't exactly covered himself in glory, and just where has constant enmity to Russia got us since the fall of the USSR? We push and nudge and face off for decades against the Soviets (rightly IMO) and then give them no encouragement to become a decent friendly country post cold war afterwards. Then we're surprised that Russia becomes a dictatorship? Surprised that they still face off with the West when we constantly still face off with them?

Obama has to be one of the most ineffective presidents the US has ever had. Good at PR but not much else.

In any case this is a deliberate and petty attempt to provide fundament for continuation of neocon foreign policy and tie Trump hands. It also logically led to Flynn meeting with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak which in  this sense can be considered as an entrapment (In a November 2016 speech at Stanford University, Kislyak denied that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections.[25] In the same speech, Kisylak accused the United States of waging a "huge propaganda campaign against Russia" and stated that the American-Russian relationship was currently at "the worst point in our relations after the end of the Cold War. You've re-entered a policy of containing Russia … You've tried to contain Russia through economic pressure and through sanctions."[5])

No, because he is deliberately making the US-Russia relationship worse than it already is - and it's his administration that's responsible for it being so grim to start with. Attack Russia with sanctions, paint them into a corner publicly, and you should not be surprised if the bear decides to bite back.

Milton an opinion 29 Dec 2016 16:44

No I think we agree Hillary is shit. It's just that she lost (well, won by 3m votes) against a stupid, arrogant, spoiled, bigoted, misogynist, racist, multiple bankrupt lying turd who was, amazingly enough, an even more loathsome human being than she.

Possibily even more stupefyingly unbelievable is that either one of these wretches is to succeed America's first black president, who proved that intelligence does not a good leader make if unaccompanied by wisdom or insight, but who managed to look good, after a fashion, because he was preceded by one of the stupidest humans ever to pollute the Oval Office.

Obama's legacy will be that he was a useless president distinguished only by the fact that he was both preceded and succeeded by arrogant cretins.
 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 1999

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Oct 13, 2019] The CIA Versus Donald J. Trump

Notable quotes:
"... I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. ..."
"... It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he? ..."
"... CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?! ..."
Oct 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

The CIA Versus Donald J. Trump by Tyler Durden Sat, 10/12/2019 - 22:50 0 SHARES

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

It's both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "whistleblower."

It's pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within the national-security state agencies they were working for.

That's not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He didn't blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices, such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc country.

If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers. In fact, that's how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That's obviously not happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this "whistleblower" as being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the CIA.

That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble, he's also obviously a snitch.

A "gotcha" moment

In fact, the entire episode has a "gotcha" feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and editorials about what Trump rightly called the "collusion delusion" theory. Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.

And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.

All they needed and wanted was an opportunity -- any opportunity -- to apply their impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a "gotcha!" and proceeded to snitch on Trump with his "whistleblower" complaint.

Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against him?

The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.

That's what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the "gotcha" episode for which they were clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.

National security enmity toward Trump

Despite his campaign rhetoric against "endless wars," Trump has kept U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon's and CIA's assassination program. He has also continued the Pentagon's and CIA's indefinite detention and torture center at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes. The fact is that Trump's term in office, despite his "America First" rhetoric, has proven to be nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.

That's what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high crimes don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

But it's also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C., political elites have. Trump's failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new president.

Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the national-security establishment, stated, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens, so long it is necessary to protect "national security."

Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the mainstream press. The CIA's Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.

Coup through impeachment

And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries "conspiracy theory," recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about the threat that the "military-industrial complex" poses to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term "military-industrial-congressional complex" but changed his mind at the last minute. He was referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to be a "conspiracy theorist," the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the Kennedy assassination too closely.

Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA's long-secret records relating to the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA's request for continued secrecy.

Why did Trump do that?

One possibility is that he became convinced that "national security" would be jeopardized if the American people were to see the CIA's long-secret JFK assassination records.

Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.

A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one of the most naïve presidents in history.


I am Groot , 34 minutes ago link

I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to.

If we have no rule of law anymore, then **** it. It's time to abolish our entire government and start from scratch under the Declaration of Independence.

iuyyyyui , 45 minutes ago link

Maybe Trump was naive not to realize how much the entrenched elites were against him and what he represented.

And maybe the entrenched elites don't realize how deeply so many of us deplorables hate them . Let's see how D.C. -- the Senate and the Supreme Court -- defuse the coming Civil War. Because the House and the Executive have already staked out their positions ... AND SO HAVE WE.

Mimir , 54 minutes ago link

"That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a spy and a snitch..." !!!!

That promised well for the The Future of Freedom ....., and the protection of whistleblowers.

America is is entering a cul de sac in clear daylight for all to see. The World is laughing.

mark1955 , 58 minutes ago link

Next Joke...LOL!

Fraud Trump ( President "Gun Control" ) and the CIA are best buddy's!!!

It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he?

They ( Along with their democrat/republican Comrades ), are working together for their Rothschild Israeli/NWO masters, to Try and undermine the American people and Enslave the world!

Please don't fall for this phony Good Cop/Bad Cop "Theatre"...Fraud Trump and the CIA are one and the same!

peggysue1 , 1 hour ago link

I think that the CIA will rue the day they took on Trump. They have a tiger by the tail. Just ask Mueller. We all re member how that turned out.

CTacitus , 1 hour ago link

CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?!

Here is as awkward question: why are we not allowed to simply ask what is truly ailing us and why in many countries the mere doubt or questioning will lend one in prison. What kinds of "truths" demand prison time for simply asking questions?!

We've lost WWII. Western societies are no longer exceptional, if they were so to begin with (the traitors made sure of that). We must reform and address the one true problem at our midst: Jewish tyranny!

A man, unlike ANY politician since dared to put the interests of his people ahead of anything else. Whether you agree or disagree, have an open mind to revisit this case; perhaps you will now see what you missed previously.

... ... ...

perikleous , 51 minutes ago link

Left and Right is nothing but Reality TV for the masses. They are two sides of a coin, in the end its still one coin!

They are funded on both sides from the same people, one side is funded openly the other is through NGOs to hide the "investment" donation.

To believe they are truly after Trump is BS, the "left" wants in, by getting him "out" but the people funding it all are just using the "left" as muscle to keep Trump "inline" doing their bidding! If it was a Democrat they couldn't keep inline they would do the same thing, in the end its all just another way to keep society divided so they can further control us and strip away more freedom,power and money/assets and we agree to give it away when asked under the BS lie of protecting us from some made up enemy/threat, and we fall for it every time like a mouse to glue paper!

If Snowden and Assange showing us how bad we have been betrayed didn't wake us up to rebel, nothing will!

It would be a whole different story if the info they released was being debated for truth, but they have been openly confirmed on everything they released and we still go along with this DeepState monster that has basically imprisoned us all, some with bars/cells some without but all imprisoned and lacking Free will/freedom we as a nation are suppose to have!

The fact that we still surrender more and more of this freedom daily without any outcry from the population is mindboggling. How bad does it have to get to get some fight out of the populas? It is even more worrying that there is no MSM that will independently report what we know as fact so we can unite.

[Oct 13, 2019] Opening Statement of Marie L.Yovanovitch to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee on Oversight and Reform

Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure but with different players.
Notable quotes:
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
Oct 11, 2019 | d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net

The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a window of opportunity to do just that.

Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe -- creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.

Two Wars

But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become: the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority. The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of the issues I expect we will be discussing today.

... ... ...

I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019. Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in country.

Here are just a few:

Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:

During my Tenure in Ukraine

[Oct 13, 2019] Rep. Jim Jordan Asks 17 Awkward Questions About Pelosi's Impeachment Inquiry

This is coup d'état, no question about it. What is the level of connection of Adam Schiff and the CIA?
Notable quotes:
"... Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes? ..."
"... Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references? ..."
"... What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate? ..."
Oct 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

1. Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes?

2. Why did the "whistleblower" wait 18 days to file the complaint after describing the call as "frightening" in their memo?

3. Why and when did the "whistleblower" communicate with Rep Adam Schiff's staff before filing the complaint?

4. Why did the "whistleblower" hide from the ICIG that they met with Rep Adam Schiff's staff by not checking the box on the whistleblower form indicating they had spoken to Congress?

5. Why didn't Rep Adam Schiff tell us his staff had met with the "whistleblower?"

6. Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references?

7. Why is Rep Adam Schiff holding hearings, depositions, and interviews behind closed doors?

8. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews, instead of leaking cherry-picked information that fits his narrative?

9. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff take questions from the press after these interviews, like Republicans have done?

10. Why does Speaker Pelosi think we need to “strike while the iron is hot,” instead of taking time for serious and thorough investigative fact-finding?

11. Why is Speaker Pelosi scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry like it’s been done every other time?

12. Why do Democrats keep making up the rules as they go along, instead of following a fair process?

13. What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate?

14. Why do Democrats and the media keep falsely claiming President Trump pressured Ukraine? President Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wasn't pushed.

15. Why don't Democrats trust the American people to choose the President? The election is less than 13 months away.

16. Why won't Democrats focus on helping the country, instead of attacking the President with this unfair and partisan process?

17. Why won't the media ask these questions to Rep Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi?


punjabiraj , 1 minute ago link

Dems not troubled by truth. Their mind control media believes in itself as the new God that the morons bow down to and will abandon their children for. Their brainwashed radical left will trample their own mothers to get into a fight to the death for their demonic cause of grabbing power for the furtherance of their selfish sponsors.

This is the train of darkness that unwittingly delivered the first people POTUS reaction. The train drivers are very powerful and are long established as the puppet masters. They are scheming 24/7 on multiple fronts to distract their enemy called democracy and further embed themselves within every internal organ and nerve fiber. But they are not immutable.

The capture of democracy is a goal that they must achieve. The attack is obviously coordinated and multi-faceted. The tool of brainwashing will target the children, like the Nazi program called "Hitler Youth" but with a neolibic dogma.

One man stands alone against the deep state and its swamp and media and mind control and infiltration. Can he trust anyone to watch his back?

Someone Else , 9 minutes ago link

This is really a travesty. Every day we hear about this. The President is being tried by the press - with only one side being heard. How the hell is this fair?

Sick Monkey , 13 minutes ago link

The impeachment calls were to serve as a distraction till 2020.

Seems to have backfired.

Again

hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago link

disturbing thread to you maybe.

to most on this thread democrats want to take all they can via taxes, then borrow what they can't raise in taxes, democrats will cause widespread poverty, sickness and will sponsor **** educational standards, encourage perversion and pay minorities taxpayer dollars to buy their votes - even though minorities are no more special than any social grouping (other than the perverts in the lbGTQ++ community who are special in a mentally retarded way) democrats sponsor criminal behavior by refusing to punish it and so on and so forth,

trump at least promotes reward for effort, by giving back some taxes to individuals and makes American corporate tax rates consistent with global corporate tax rates, has shitcanned the stealth taxes on healthy people via Obamacare, and inspires people left behind by the constant march to socialism that the US has endured for the last fifty years (via welfare benefits, scholastic indoctrination, social housing programs, medicare/medicaid programs that taxpayers could have got for half the price they paid - and half the debt liabilities run up in trust funds.

so..has trump got the federal government completely out of peoples lives? no, but he at least wants taxes on the country to 18% of GDP and not the 40% targeted by the howler monkeys on the left.

it is not a choice of two equal evils. it is the choice between YOU paying 18% of your income or 40%.

tough choice right?

[Oct 10, 2019] Trump, Impeachment Forgetting What Brought Him to the White House by Andrew J. Bacevich

Highly recommended!
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
Oct 10, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they think.

From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual certainty.

No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.

So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty. That it now concerns a " Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a story of ascent.

The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered by Bill Clinton's " sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.

As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office, gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion -- larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding what's still called " national security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and pointless.

By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield. Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of possibilities awaiting the nation.

The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and lucrative) way out.

The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing. In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart holding forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery, this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch" McConnell , think again.

The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.

That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a colossal waste of time and blather.

Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.

Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public, a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.

Restoration Not Removal

So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place.

Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction -- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president. People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump doesn't deserve to be president and never did.

For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path.

In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained.

Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change.

These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.

"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as broadcast on CNN.

For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice. Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and unprincipled political novice in 2016.

Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed). Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008. As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.

Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ; millions displaced ; trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case even formed inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?

The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a direct result of the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?

Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.

Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)

To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so.

What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of addressing such questions.

Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . His new book, " The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ," will be published in January.

This article is from TomDispatch.com .


Mark Thomason , October 9, 2019 at 17:03

Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too.

Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that non-plan.

Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.

Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time.

LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01

Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".

Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00

I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid.

At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems.

Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and throughout the country.

Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.

Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused now).

Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!

[Oct 09, 2019] The only 'Russian bots' to meddle in US elections belonged to Democrat-linked 'experts'

Another day, another false flag operation...
Notable quotes:
"... New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate. ..."
"... Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to support a write-in candidate instead. ..."
"... In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet. ..."
Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

US cyber-security experts have blamed Russia for meddling in American elections since 2016. Now it has emerged that authors of a Senate report on 'Russian' meddling actually ran a "false flag" meddling operation themselves. A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.

Described by the New York Times as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies. Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agency. His partner, Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company in 2018 alone. Morgan and Fox have struck gold in the "Russiagate" racket, which sprung into being after Hillary Clinton blamed Moscow for Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. Morgan, for example, is one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, the online tool that purports to monitor and expose narratives being pushed by the Kremlin on Twitter. The dashboard is bankrolled by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – a collection of Democrats and neoconservatives funded in part by NATO and USAID.

It is worth noting that the 600 "Russia-linked" Twitter accounts monitored by the dashboard are not disclosed to the public, making it impossible to verify its claims. This inconvenience has not stopped Hamilton 68 from becoming a go-to source for hysteria-hungry journalists, however.

From the way it was formed to the secrecy of its "methods" to the blatantly false assumptions on which its claims rest, "Hamilton68" is probably the single most successful media fraud & US propaganda campaign I've seen since I've been writing about politics. It's truly shocking.

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 22, 2018
Troll hunters or bot farm?

New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.

Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to support a write-in candidate instead.

In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."

It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones , which based its story on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68.

Russian trolls tracked by #Hamilton68 are taking an interest in the AL Senate race. What a surprise. pic.twitter.com/Nz1PNmuT2R

-- Jonathon Morgan (@jonathonmorgan) November 10, 2017

Ultimately, Moore ended up losing the race by a miniscule 1.5 percentage points – making his opponent Doug Jones the first Democrat to represent Alabama in the US Senate in over 25 years.

Money trail and weak apologies

Things got even weirder when it turned out that Scott Shane, the author of the Times piece, had known about the meddling for months, because he spoke at an event where the organizers boasted about it!

Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hurt Moore. He dubbed it "Project Birmingham."

This gets even weirder: NYT reporter @ScottShaneNYT , who broke the Alabama disinfo op story, learned of it in early September when he spoke at an off-the-record event organized by one of the firms that perpetrated the deception https://t.co/gIAytOh2yy

-- Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) December 28, 2018

The money for the venture came from a $750,000 contribution to AET by Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a big Democrat donor. Once that emerged, Hoffman offered a public apology for his connection to the shady operation, but insisted that he didn't know what his money was going towards.

" I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing ," Hoffman said in a statement.

"For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET -- the organization I did support -- more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject."

As for Shane, he told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, but had signed a nondisclosure agreement at the request of AET, so he could not talk about it further.

Spin and denial

Shane's spin on the tale was that New Knowledge "imitated Russian tactics" as part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 and had no effect on the election. Yet these tactics are only considered "Russian" because New Knowledge and similar outfits said so! Moreover, New Knowledge's budget in Alabama was greater than the reported amount spent by "Russians" on the 2016 US presidential election, yet Moscow's alleged meddling was supposed to be decisive, while New Knowledge's failed?

New Knowledge responded to the Times story by insisting that the "false flag" operation was actually a benign research project. In a statement posted on Twitter, the company's CEO claimed that its activities during the Alabama Senate race were conducted in order to "better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."

My statement on this evening's NYT article. pic.twitter.com/lsJuRqiffL

-- Jonathon Morgan (@jonathonmorgan) December 20, 2018

Morgan emphasized that he in no way took part in an influence campaign, and warned people not to mischaracterize his "research."

While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.

New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which announced last week that five accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."

Meddlers unmasked

The final nail in the coffin of Morgan's story came on Thursday, when the leaked secret after-action report from "Project Birmingham" was published online, showing that those behind the Alabama campaign knew perfectly well what they were doing and why.

BREAKING: Here's the after-action report from the AL Senate disinfo campaign.

**an exclusive release by @JeffGiesea https://t.co/VXrCeb8LAD

-- Jeff Giesea🌿 (@jeffgiesea) December 28, 2018

So, it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Oct 09, 2019] Here they go again Senate reheats 'Russian meddling' claims, using assertions as evidence -- RT USA News

Notable quotes:
"... "much of this Volume's analysis is derived from" ..."
"... "Russian troll farm" ..."
"... "Intelligence Community Assessment," ..."
"... "Strategic Communications Center of Excellence." ..."
"... "a cybersecurity company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks." ..."
"... "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet." ..."
"... "Russian" ..."
"... "significantly informed the Committee's understanding of Russia's social media-predicated attack against our democracy," ..."
"... Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed "Russian hackers" ..."
Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

Here they go again: Senate reheats 'Russian meddling' claims, using assertions as evidence 9 Oct, 2019 00:05 Get short URL Here they go again: Senate reheats 'Russian meddling' claims, using assertions as evidence Here they go again: Senate reheats 'Russian meddling' claims, using assertions as evidence Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee look at a placard showing 'Russian social media manipulation' at a November 1, 2017 hearing. © REUTERS/Joshua Roberts Follow RT on RT The Senate Intelligence Committee's final report on 'Russian interference' in the 2016 US presidential election is short on evidence and long on reheated assertions and innuendo from 'experts' exposed as actual election meddlers. There is little new in the 85-page , partially redacted document released on Tuesday, that has not been made public by the committee previously – including the accusations that "Russia" focused on stoking anger and resentment among African-Americans, for example .

There is a reason for that. By the committee's own admission, "much of this Volume's analysis is derived from" the work of two Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), which produced two public reports back in December 2018, to the same kind of fawning press coverage the report is receiving now.

NEW: The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections involved using social media content to mostly target African-Americans, a new Senate committee report concludes. https://t.co/7BRUmiG18T

-- NPR (@NPR) October 8, 2019

Not surprisingly, the report's "findings" are being cited as conclusive proof that Democrats were right and President Donald Trump was wrong about 2016, Russia, Ukraine and the US presidential election.

The Senate Intelligence Committee unveiled a sweeping new bipartisan report showing Russian efforts to boost Trump's White House bid on social media during the 2016 U.S. election https://t.co/TUjUhBdMnc

-- POLITICO (@politico) October 8, 2019

The only trouble with that is that the committee provides no actual evidence for any of its claims – only assertions. For example, their description of the Internet Research Agency – the "Russian troll farm" – is basically copied over from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of a dozen of its alleged members. Yet a federal judge presiding over the case ruled back in May that allegations cannot be treated as established evidence or conclusion, coming close to finding Mueller's prosecutors in contempt.

Another nail in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim READ MORE: Another nail in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim

Another document presented as evidence is the January 2017 "Intelligence Community Assessment," the disingenuously named work of a small group of people, hand-picked by the Obama administration's DNI and chiefs of the CIA, FBI and NSA – all of whom, except for the NSA, have since been implicated in what seems to be a campaign to spy on Trump, delegitimize his presidency, and have him impeached.

The Senate report also quotes testimonies from Obama aides such as Ben Rhodes – helpfully redacted of course – Gen. Philip Breedlove, the NATO commander who tried to set off a war with Russia; professional "Russian bot" hunters like Clint Watts and Thomas Rid; and NATO's "Strategic Communications Center of Excellence."

The best part, however, has to be the reliance on New Knowledge, presented as "a cybersecurity company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks." In reality, New Knowledge was exposed by the New York Times as the outfit that actually ran bots and disinformation operations during the 2017 Alabama special election for the US Senate, targeting Republican candidate Roy Moore on behalf of Democrats – while blaming Russia! In an internal memo, New Knowledge executives boasted how they "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."

The other TAG, led by British academics and researchers, found that the activity of 'Russian trolls' increased after the election – by 238 percent on Instagram, 59 percent on Facebook, 52 percent on Twitter, and 84 percent on YouTube. So it was influencing elections retroactively?

Left unsaid was that the absolute quantity of "Russian" posts was minuscule, a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the billions of social media posts generated and consumed by the US electorate during the campaign.

Also on rt.com Worst meddler ever? 'Russian' Facebook ads 'trolling US election' went completely unseen

These are the people who "significantly informed the Committee's understanding of Russia's social media-predicated attack against our democracy," as this week's report puts it.

Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed "Russian hackers" for the revelations of corruption within the DNC in July 2016, the Washington establishment has been eager to blame Moscow for all the ills of the US political system, real or imagined. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report seems to be nothing more than an attempt to reheat the long-cold corpse of a conspiracy that should have been buried with the Mueller Report and allowed to rest in peace.

[Oct 09, 2019] Dems publish Trump administration officials' texts in Ukrainegate impeachment frenzy

Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

In one of the exchanges with US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, dated September 9, Taylor spells out what would become the Democrats' argument for impeachment:

As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

It's time Dems try to bring in Ambassador Bill Taylor.

Taylor *twice* texts about a direct quid pro quo between military aid and Ukraine helping Trump rig our election.

There's a *reason* Taylor thought there was a quid pro quo.

Let's hear from him: https://t.co/NY8KRlYpb5

-- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) October 4, 2019

Sondland's admonishment of Taylor – "I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind." – is somehow being held up as an admission of wrongdoing, along with his request for a phone call instead of continued texts.

Just like that, all of a sudden, the controversy about the so-called "whistleblower" who may have colluded with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) before filing his complaint – based on hearsay – is declared "irrelevant" and the texts are held up as the Holy Grail of impeachment proceedings.

At this point, whistleblower complaint is irrelevant. Transcript of Trump-Zelensky call and texts from Volker, Sondland et al released yesterday is all one needs to show clearly Trump misconduct .

-- Michael McFaul (@McFaul) October 4, 2019

It's curious how the same treatment was not given a few months ago to the anti-Trump text messages of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when the entire media establishment twisted itself into pretzels to explain that when Strzok said "we'll stop" Trump from becoming president what he really meant, you see, was something totally innocuous and not sinister at all .

House Republicans have blasted the diplomatic texts as "cherry-picked" by the other party, and argued that the closed-doors testimony of Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine who participated in the exchanges, painted a completely different picture.

We noticed the original tweet was deleted after we posted our fact check.

Here's a screenshot, in case you missed it.

Truth hurts. https://t.co/HHHz0Te5PT pic.twitter.com/ZJ4KDcEGHR

-- Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) October 4, 2019

Reading the transcript of Volker's opening statement, obtained and published Friday by investigative reporter John Solomon and the Federalist, seems to back that claim. Volker testified he did not bring up the issue of a hold on military aid with the Ukrainians until late August, when it was first reported in the media – and long after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Nor was he made aware of any reference to former VP Joe Biden or his son until the transcript of the call was released on September 25.

US Vice President Joe Biden after addressing Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada in Kiev, flanked by President Petro Poroshenko and Speaker Vladimir Groisman, August 12, 2015. © Sputnik/Nikolay Lazarenko

Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani "stressed that all he wanted to see was for Ukraine to investigate what happened in the past and apply its own laws," Volker also explained.

Also on rt.com Shot down? Testimony by Trump's Ukraine envoy seems to skewer Democrats' impeachment narrative

On the issue of holding up military aid, Volker admits he was conducting his own policy, in line with the consensus in Washington, rather than obeying the president who appointed him:

"I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position I was confident that this position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in Washington."

Yet the most overlooked text in the batch is from Volker to Giuliani, dated August 9, asking for a phone call "to make sure I advise Z [Zelensky] correctly as to what he should be saying."

'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine 'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine READ MORE: 'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine

To the impeachment-bent Democrats, what's objectionable here is the substance of Volker's instruction – namely, the alleged "election meddling" in investigating the Bidens (and Ukraine's role in 2016, which they are eager never to mention). What should be objectionable is the fact that a US diplomat is stage-whispering to the freshly elected president of an ostensibly sovereign country. Not that it would be the first time.

Way back in April 2016 , President Barack Obama argued that the US stood for the "principle that nations like Ukraine have the right to choose their own destiny." Left unsaid was that such choices would only be honored if they aligned with US beliefs and objectives – and subject to "color revolution" and regime change if not, which is just what happened in February 2014 in Kiev.

The fact that neither Democrats and Republicans are raising that issue with Volker's testimony and the texts just goes to show that neither have a problem with the US acting like an empire, and Ukraine being its vassal. That is what is truly damning about all of this, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Nebojsa Malic , senior writer at RT

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Oct 09, 2019] Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses

Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

President Donald Trump has continued to hammer Democratic efforts to impeach him, this time accusing the party of "continuing to interfere in the 2016 election" as well. "Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "They must be stopped!"

Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election. They must be stopped!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2019

The president has called the impeachment investigation against him – which centers around allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into reopening a corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter's business dealings in the country – "fake" and a "phony witch hunt," designed to oust him before the 2020 race.

Rather than suggesting that Democrats were traveling through time to meddle in the 2016 election all over again, the second half of the president's tweet refers to his belief that the impeachment drive was concocted to distract from Attorney General William Barr's efforts to investigate the origins of the counterintelligence probe against his campaign.

Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses. Barr's office received a draft report of this alleged FISA abuse from the Justice Department's Inspector General two weeks ago.

[Oct 09, 2019] Demorats try to present Ukraine as a foreign power instead of a new Puerto Rico, totally contolled by the USA territoty. In other words they are "Full of Schiff"

Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

Several top Democrats have released text messages between US officials which they claim expose the Trump administration's drive to 'coerce' the Ukrainian government to target Joe Biden, for purely political reasons obviously. The Democratic chairs of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released the messages in a letter to fellow representatives late Thursday.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/428684500/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true&access_key=key-da7vTHhEexmTioD4RtIm

The letter features over a dozen text messages between US diplomats – including former Trump administration envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ukrainian embassy official Bill Taylor, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, as well as the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Also on rt.com Trump says China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens' activities in the countries

"The president and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of soliciting foreign power to interfere in our elections," the chairmen wrote.

Even more astonishing, he is now openly and publicly asking another foreign power – China – to launch its own sham investigation against the Bidens to further his own political aims.

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would launch an impeachment inquiry over the allegations the president sought to "shake down" his Ukrainian counterpart, unifying six separate committee probes under one umbrella.

This isn't about a Campaign, this is about Corruption on a massive scale! https://t.co/DOCvfM8eqi

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2019

President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing amid the controversy, arguing that there is nothing illicit about requesting an ally to investigate potential corruption. He has stressed that Biden himself publicly bragged about threatening to withhold US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the country fired its head prosecutor, who happened to be investigating the gas firm that hired Biden's son, Hunter.

. @DevinNunes . @Jim_Jordan

What is fascinating in the texts is the 4 attempts that Bill Taylor made to entrap Sondland-beginning less than a week after Shifty's staffer Thomas Eager met with Bill in Ukraine.

I smell a rat 🐀 https://t.co/XpUVsxyvwM pic.twitter.com/KfmOKbXojU

-- JadedKushner - Supernatural Wisdom-PARODY (@JarradKushner) October 4, 2019

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Oct 09, 2019] 'Unconstitutional, illegitimate secretive' White House pens lengthy letter on why it won't cooperate with 'impeachment inqui

Oct 09, 2019 | www.rt.com

A showdown between the White House and Democrats is in full swing with the former penning a letter declaring it would not cooperate with an "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional" impeachment inquiry conducted in secret. The letter , published on Tuesday evening, condemned the impeachment initiative in the harshest terms yet, arguing it deprived President Trump of "constitutionally mandated due process," and that the inquiry lacked legal legitimacy, as it was never authorized by a House vote.

Congressional Democrats have flouted the Constitution and all past bipartisan precedent under the guise of an "impeachment inquiry."

Full response from the White House: https://t.co/0kC4yFeghg

-- The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 8, 2019

You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.

"You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers," the letter continued "All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent ." [emphasis in original]

The White House accused Democrats of using impeachment as a tool to not only "undo the democratic results" of the previous election, but to "influence" the upcoming contest as well, citing the words of Congressman Al Green (D-Texas), who in May expressed concerns that "if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected."

The letter also notes that ranking Republican committee members had not been granted the same subpoena powers as the Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment process – as they were during previous inquiries – slamming the process as unfair and "one-sided."

Also on rt.com Impeachment saga: Trump won't send EU envoy to stand before 'totally compromised KANGAROO COURT' but Dems file subpoena

Earlier on Monday, the Democratic committee chairs issued a subpoena to compel the testimony of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the inquiry, after the White House signaled that it would block his appearance before Congress. The Trump administration appears to be doubling down on that move, arguing in the letter that it will simply not comply with future subpoenas.

Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.

Going along with the inquiry under its "current unconstitutional posture" would "inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers," the letter said, adding that Democrats have "left the president no choice" but to refuse to cooperate.

Also on rt.com Ukrainegate goes to Pentagon: House Democrats subpoena DoD & OMB as part of Trump impeachment probe

The missive is the White House's latest response to intensifying impeachment efforts spearheaded by House Democrats, who launched the proceedings late last month accusing Trump of pressuring the President of Ukraine to probe into the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son in the country.

Several Democratic opponents shot back at the document, some denouncing the move as an act of obstruction.

"The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a statement on Tuesday, adding the president had "normalize[d] lawlessness."

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Oct 09, 2019] CIA Whistleblower 'Professionally Tied' To 2020 Candidate; 2nd 'Whistleblower' Was First One's Source

Oct 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

A CIA employee who lodged a whistleblower complaint over President Trump's request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden has a "professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," according to the Washington Examiner 's Byron York - citing a source familiar with last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

Now we know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) won't release the transcript...

" The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates ," said York's source.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of the testimony.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part, " such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review ."

Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the whistleblower acted out of bias . Indeed, the transcript of Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower's purported bias. - Washington Examiner

In short, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll went to Adam Schiff's committee, who referred him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint on a form which was altered to allow second-hand information .

Update: Former State Department official Peter Van Buren told Tucker Carlson on Monday that the second 'whistleblower' is simply the the source for the original 'second-hand' complaint. (h/t Gateway Pundit)

[Oct 09, 2019] Ukrainegate as the textbook example of how the neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from real issues

Highly recommended!
Oct 09, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

EMichael , October 09, 2019 at 02:07 PM

His entire life trump has been a deadbeat.

"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive. So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.

This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:

"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will never be welcome in Minneapolis."

It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29416840/trump-feud-minneapolis-mayor-security-rally/

ilsm , October 09, 2019 at 03:03 PM
When it comes to Trump not going full Cheney war monged in Syria Krugman is a Bircher!l
likbez , October 09, 2019 at 03:22 PM
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this particular order.)

Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from real issues.

An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )

"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and byzantine."

There are two competing narratives here:

1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed "Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect: supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant corruption.

2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.) Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker. Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even basic political education.

In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.

What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and elsewhere).

So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the US society.

And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )

I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:

  1. Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016 with election of Trump);
  2. Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
  3. Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the state after 9/11 into national security state);
  4. Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can entail;
  5. Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up

Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement, and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the only exception).

And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice entertainment, I think ;-)

Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.

Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.

[Oct 09, 2019] As long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that the Rules Committee cannot do

Oct 09, 2019 | theconservativetreehouse.com

Lburg , October 8, 2019 at 6:09 pm

This may be a LollaPalosi wrap-up smear tactic.

Called the House Rules Committee office this morning. In order for House Rules to change after they pass at the start of the session – in this case January 2019 – there would have to be a vote taken. In looking at the House Resolution ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6/all-actions ) all actions occurred in Jan. this year so no vote to amend has been taken. That doesn't mean that Nan won't use this wonk's paper to bolster her position OR that a particular committee didn't change their rules. But according to the person I spoke with, the standing House Rules can not be changed without a vote.

The gentleman also said that Congressional Research Service papers are just that – interpretations/research on a particular subject that do not hold any legislative weight. They are requested anonymously so there probably isn't a way to trace who requested this particular paper or how it ended up being authored by Rybicki (one of seven she's written this year). Additional little tidbit is that the papers can be requested by members of Congress or their staff members.

While trying to figure it out on my own found this chilling little factoid from the Rules Committee page re: bills considered under a "special rules" scenerio ( https://rules.house.gov/about archived here: http://archive.fo/VIK1C ):
"The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that the Rules Committee cannot do. " (emphasis mine)

That makes the House Rules Committee more powerful that the full house voting on "special rules" bills. Well doesn't that just sound .wrong.

[Oct 09, 2019] Five Questions That Frighten Impeachment-Focused Dems by Graham Noble

No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended.
Notable quotes:
"... It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle. ..."
Oct 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Five Questions That Frighten Impeachment-Focused Dems by Tyler Durden Wed, 10/09/2019 - 11:25 0 SHARES

Authored by Graham Noble via LibertyNation.com,

As the phony impeachment investigation targeting President Donald Trump rumbles on, there really is no definitive list of questions that as yet remain unanswered. Were anyone to compile such a list, it would probably start with five questions that strike at the heart of the entire affair.

These questions clarify whether the current process is being conducted correctly or is colored by partisan hostility – and, indeed, whether the Russian "collusion" investigation was similarly tainted.

1. Ukraine-DNC Connection?

It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle.

2. Anonymous Witnesses?

The so-called whistleblower who came forward with a complaint about the nature of the president's phone conversation with the new Ukrainian president is hardly a credible witness since he or she had no firsthand knowledge of the call. Democrats are already making elaborate but secretive plans to extract testimony from this individual. Can his or her identity be kept from the public – and from the president – indefinitely?

The president's opponents cannot possibly believe that they can impeach Trump using secondhand allegations provided by an anonymous source. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed that, if Democrats refuse to identify this "whistleblower," then he will ensure that any Senate impeachment trial will do so. Further, it would be necessary for the identities of White House sources from whom the whistleblower claims to have obtained information to be exposed.

Regardless of laws and rules designed to protect whistleblowers, any formal impeachment cannot be based upon testimony from unknown persons. Given that Democrats, since day one of the Trump presidency, have made no secret of their desire to impeach the president, the entire credibility of such an effort would stand or fall on complete transparency. The American public and the president himself deserve nothing less than to know the identities of the accusers and the sources from which they drew their information.

3. Another Whistleblower?

At least one additional whistleblower has now come forward, according to reports, but does this fact change anything? Indeed, the outrage over the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears even more fabricated the more that anonymous individuals come forward with complaints. Already, it is highly suspicious that almost three weeks passed between the phone call itself and the filing of a complaint about what was said. Additional complaints filed even later hardly bolster the credibility of the case against Trump.

4. Schiff's Role?

How has Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) role in this latest assault upon the president compromised the entire process? Schiff has been less than forthcoming about his knowledge of events or the extent to which his own staffers worked with the whistleblower even before any complaint was filed with the intelligence community's inspector general.

Adam Schiff

As if the congressman were not already looking foolish and dishonest, his performance at a recent hearing was reason enough for Schiff to be compelled to recuse himself. During the event, he read out his own version of what Trump said to Zelensky – which bore no resemblance to the now-public transcript. The very idea that Schiff has either the capability or the desire to conduct a fair and objective investigation is utterly laughable.

5. Window Of Opportunity?

Finally, how big is the window of opportunity for congressional Democrats to impeach the president? They may have so far avoided making the process official, but articles of impeachment must, at some point, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.

Once the opposition party chooses its presidential nominee, the campaign for the White House begins in earnest, and impeaching Trump during an election campaign is going to be seen as purely an attempt to influence the 2020 election – even by those Americans who do not already see it as such.

Democrats, therefore, have around eight months to conclude their investigations, draw up articles of impeachment, and bring them up for debate and a vote. The holiday season will take a bite out of that time, so the clock is ticking. The chances of impeachment going before the Senate before the 2020 Democratic National Convention are slim to none.

These five basic questions, when answered objectively, determine whether there is any realistic chance of Trump's enemies removing him from office before the next election or this entire exercise is, for Democrats, a political catastrophe.


CosmoJoe , 2 minutes ago link

The public isn't buying any of this because people are desensitized after hearing for 3 years that Trump will be gone in days, the walls are closing in, etc. 3 years of that **** and it was all nonsense. Remember how every Friday was going to be the day that Mueller dropped the dime on Trump? You can't do that for years and expect people to have any ***** left to give. That shipped has sailed.

Smi1ey , 30 minutes ago link

I want to know about Burisma . It is at the heart of the matter.

I want a timeline of their recent activities, board of directors etc. Why was their money seized in London? Who released it and why? Who asked Biden to join the board and why?

Burisma

Burisma

Burisma

Need . . . to . . . know . . .

847328_3527 , 34 minutes ago link

Both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have said the impeachment tactic a a major mistake. Chomsky says the Dems have not discussed jobs, economy, etc even once. They have only satisfied their own shallow egos by screaming "RussiaGate" "Impeachment" etc. according to Chomsky.

Fantasy Free Economics , 29 minutes ago link

This latest impeachment effort is as phony as all get out. It is for show to the Democratic base and it is guaranteed to fail. As long as Trump is handling the Epstein investigations. Heat from democrats is going to be completely manageable. http://quillian.net/blog/an-epstein-deal-is-in-place/

[Oct 09, 2019] NYT spit Clinton camp propaganda again. In reality, Ukraine is vassal state fully controlled by Washington (kind of Puerto Rico); what foreign influence we are talking about ?

Oct 09, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , October 07, 2019 at 07:37 AM

(How times change.)

'We Absolutely Could Not Do That': When Seeking Foreign
Help Was Out of the Question https://nyti.ms/30Lkzni
NYT - Peter Baker - October 6

WASHINGTON -- One day in October 1992, four Republican congressmen showed up in the Oval Office with an audacious recommendation. President George Bush was losing his re-election race, and they told him the only way to win was to hammer his challenger Bill Clinton's patriotism for protesting the Vietnam War while in London and visiting Moscow as a young man.

Mr. Bush was largely on board with that approach. But what came next crossed the line, as far as he and his team were concerned. "They wanted us to contact the Russians or the British to seek information on Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow," James A. Baker III, Mr. Bush's White House chief of staff, wrote in a memo (*) later that day. "I said we absolutely could not do that."

President Trump insists he and his attorney general did nothing wrong by seeking damaging information about his domestic opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and Britain or by publicly calling on China to investigate his most prominent Democratic challenger. But for every other White House in the modern era, Republican and Democratic, the idea of enlisting help from foreign powers for political advantage was seen as unwise and politically dangerous, if not unprincipled.

A survey of 10 former White House chiefs of staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.

"I served three presidents in the White House and don't remember even hearing any speculation to consider asking for such action," said Andrew H. Card Jr., who ran the younger Mr. Bush's White House and was the longest-serving chief of staff in the last six decades.

William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary under Mr. Clinton and chief of staff under Mr. Obama, said if someone had even proposed such an action, he probably would "recommend the person be escorted out of" the White House, then fired and reported to ethics officials.

Other chiefs were just as definitive. "Did not happen on Reagan's watch. Would not have happened on Reagan's watch," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, his last chief of staff. "I would have shut him down," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as Mr. Clinton's chief of staff and Mr. Obama's defense secretary.

The sense of incredulity among White House veterans in recent days crossed party and ideological lines. "This is unprecedented," said Samuel K. Skinner, who preceded Mr. Baker as chief of staff under Mr. Bush. Other chiefs who said they never encountered such a situation included Thomas F. McLarty III and John D. Podesta (Clinton) and Rahm Emanuel, Denis R. McDonough and Jacob J. Lew (Obama).

History has shown that foreign affairs can be treacherous for presidents, even just the suspicion of mixing politics with the national interest. As a candidate in 1968, Richard M. Nixon sought to forestall a Vietnam peace deal by President Lyndon B. Johnson just before the election.

Associates of Mr. Reagan were accused of trying to delay the release of hostages by Iran when he was a candidate in 1980 for fear that it would aid President Jimmy Carter, but a bipartisan House investigation concluded that there was no merit to the charge. Mr. Clinton faced months of investigation over 1996 campaign contributions from Chinese interests tied to the Beijing government.

In none of those cases did an incumbent president personally apply pressure to foreign powers to damage political opponents. Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president this summer to investigate involvement with Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. while holding up $391 million in American aid. Mr. Trump has said he was simply investigating corruption, not trying to benefit himself.

"The right way to look at it is the vice president was selling our country out," Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Trump was fulfilling his duty, he said. "I don't see what the president did wrong."

Mr. Giuliani has been leading Mr. Trump's efforts to dig up evidence of corruption by the Democrats in Ukraine, meeting with various officials and negotiating a commitment by the newly installed government in Kiev to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election and supposed conflicts of interest by Mr. Biden.

Told that past White House chiefs of staff said any legitimate allegations should be handled by the Justice Department, not the president, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's if you can trust the Justice Department. My witnesses don't trust the Justice Department, and they don't trust the F.B.I." He added that he would not have either until Attorney General William P. Barr took over.

Mr. Barr has contacted foreign officials for help in investigating the origin of the special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference and ties with Mr. Trump's campaign, part of an effort to prove that the whole matter was a "hoax," as the president has insisted.

Mr. Trump defends himself by saying that other presidents have leaned on foreign governments for help. That is true, but when other presidents have pressured counterparts and even held up American assistance to coerce cooperation, it has generally been to achieve certain policy goals -- not to advance the president's personal or political agenda.

As an example, Mr. Trump often cites Mr. Obama, who was overheard telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia in 2012 that he would have more "more flexibility" to negotiate missile defense after the fall election. While that may be objectionable, it is not the same thing as asking a foreign government to intervene in an American election.

"They assume everybody's as sleazy and dirty as they are, which is not the case," Mr. Emanuel said.

Mr. Trump points to Mr. Biden, arguing that the former vice president was the one who abused his power by threatening to withhold $1 billion in American aid to Ukraine unless it fired its prosecutor general.

Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, earning $50,000 a month. The company's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been a subject of cases overseen by the prosecutor, and so Mr. Trump contends that Mr. Biden sought the prosecutor's ouster to benefit his son.

As a matter of appearances, at least, the former vice president's family left him open to suspicion. Even some of his defenders say it was unseemly for Hunter Biden to seemingly trade on his family name. The elder Mr. Biden has said he never discussed his son's business dealings in Ukraine with him, but some Democrats suggest he should have if only to prevent just such a situation from arising.

For all of that, however, no evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden moved to push out the prosecutor to benefit his son. No memo or text message has become public linking the two. None of the American officials who were involved at the time have come forward alleging any connection. No whistle-blower has filed a complaint.

In pressing for the prosecutor's ouster, Mr. Biden was carrying out Mr. Obama's policy as developed by his national security team and coordinated with European allies and the International Monetary Fund, all of which considered the Ukrainian prosecutor to be deliberately overlooking corruption.

Indeed, at the time Mr. Biden acted, there was no public evidence that the prosecutor's office was actively pursuing investigations of Burisma, although Mr. Zlochevsky's allies say the prosecutor continued to use the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from the oligarch and his team.

The 1992 episode involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker provides an intriguing case study in the way previous administrations have viewed seeking political help overseas. At the time, Mr. Bush was trailing in the polls and eager for any weapon to turn things around.

Representatives Robert K. Dornan, Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham of California and Sam Johnson of Texas urged the president to ask Russia and Britain for help.

Mr. Dornan, reached last week, said Mr. Baker offered no objections during the meeting. "Baker sat there in the Oval Office like a bump on a log," he recalled. "He said nothing." If Mr. Baker advised Mr. Bush not to reach out to foreign governments, then he did so after the congressmen had left, Mr. Dornan said.

Mr. Dornan said that was a mistake and that Mr. Bush should have done as Mr. Trump has. "The bottom line from me was, 'If you don't do this, Mr. President, leader of the free world, you will lose,'" Mr. Dornan said. "And he didn't do it and he lost. Baker cost Bush that second term."

As it was, Mr. Baker and some of his aides got in trouble anyway because State Department employees searched Mr. Clinton's passport file to determine whether he had ever tried to renounce his American citizenship. They found no such evidence, but an independent counsel was appointed to investigate whether the search violated any laws.

The attorney general who requested the investigation? Mr. Barr, in his first tour running the Justice Department. The independent counsel who was appointed? Joseph diGenova, a lawyer now helping Mr. Giuliani look for information in Ukraine. In the passport case, Mr. diGenova concluded that no laws had been broken and that he should never have been appointed in first place.

As for seeking help from Russia and Britain, Mr. Baker declined to comment last week, but his peers said he did exactly as they would have. "It would have been ludicrous at that stage to do anything," Mr. Skinner said. "Baker's decision was obviously the right one."

* Read the 1992 Memo President George Bush's Team
Sent About Seeking Foreign Help to Beat Bill Clinton

When Republican congressmen suggested Mr. Bush reach out to Russia or Britain for information that could help him win his re-election race against Bill Clinton, James A. Baker III, then the White House chief of staff, wrote this memo.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1877-memo-letter/d790695aa84a5ceb5e69/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 09, 2019 at 02:48 PM
This is pretty superficial: Ukraine is vassal state dully controlled by Washington (kind of Puerto Rico); what foreign influence we are talking about ?

Peter Baker just repeats Clinton camp talking points.

Ukrainian security establishment and probably large part of Ukrainian Congress (Rada) is probably fully controlled by CIA.

Actually representatives of CIA were sitting in SBU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Service_of_Ukraine) since the first Orange revolution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution which brought to power Viktor Yushchenko who lost to Yanukovich general election in 2004)

So anything Ukrainian side was doing to interfere with the US election has to be ordered from Washington, DC (which was done by "Obama regime", who wanted dirt of Trump team)

[Oct 09, 2019] This fake 'whistleblower' tale is tells us more about CIA then about Trump

The goal is clearly to create Russiagate 2.0
By putting Team Trump on defence, Pewlosi/Schiff et al hope with the Media's help to oust President Trump BEFORE their own corruption is exposed.
Oct 09, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Terence Gore , 07 October 2019 at 10:54 AM

The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real risk for their job and safety.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/

[Oct 09, 2019] CIA palace coup against Trump

Oct 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

wendy davis on Wed, 10/09/2019 - 10:47am Warning : Absurdist Irony Abounds:
From Patrick Martin at wsws.org , Oct. 9, 2019 :

'Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this "whistleblower"?'

" Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations -- and three who served for a period under Donald Trump -- have signed an "Open Letter to the American People" defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the president.

The signers "applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such concerns."

They further claim, "A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed What's more, being a responsible whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of retaliation."

They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower's identity must be protected at all costs, writing that "he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our protection."

This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.

The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel , former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama's point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy, Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Security Council.

These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism. Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA torture in secret overseas prisons during the "war on terror."

None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they have been brutally persecuted." [snip]

"In a recent commentary in Consortium News , Kiriakou noted the contrast between his own treatment and that accorded the "whistleblower" in the Ukraine case. He wrote, "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing." [snip]

"In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire "whistleblower" complaint against Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.

Similar questions are raised in a remarkable article posted Monday on the website of Rolling Stone magazine, written by its main political writer Matt Taibbi."

And if you haven't seen it already:

"Meet the Press" anchor Chuck Todd grills senator: "You don't trust the FBI and CIA?", Barry Grey, wsws.org

And of course Grey speaks to the irony and hypocrisy afoot with Senators Ron Johnson and Chris Murphy as well:

"When Johnson evaded Todd's questions concerning Trump's bullying of Ukraine to advance his personal electoral chances, and instead repeatedly raised the Clinton campaign's collaboration with Ukrainian officials against Trump, Todd exclaimed as though in exasperated disbelief:

" Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA? "

Johnson replied, "Absolutely not," to which Todd responded incredulously, "You don't trust any of those agencies?" [snip]

"The Democrats and their media chorus present what was rightly known as America's "Murder, Incorporated," along with its domestic counterpart, the FBI, as pillars of "democracy," improbable as this would seem to anyone familiar with the criminal history of these organizations. They evidently believe that the public is infinitely gullible and suffering from collective memory loss.

These, after all, are the organizations that justified the war in Iraq on the basis of the Big Lie of "weapons of mass destruction." They created the fraudulent narrative of the "war on terror" to justify aggressive wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa that killed millions and destroyed entire societies . Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, they funded and collaborated with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist militias in wars for regime-change.

The CIA has engineered coups and installed military dictatorships and far-right regimes all over the world. It would take many volumes to detail all of the lies and crimes of these pillars of the "deep state" against the people of the United States and the entire world." [snip]

"Todd's next guest was Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat from Connecticut), who co-sponsored with Johnson the bill to provide more arms to Kiev. Murphy repeatedly attacked Johnson for a lack of "patriotism."

The final guest was John Brennan -- now a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC -- whom Todd presented as a national hero unjustly slandered and victimized by Trump and his political allies. Introducing the 25-year veteran of the CIA, who served as deputy executive director under George W. Bush and director under Barack Obama, Todd asked: "And how would you explain to somebody, you have been completely character assassinated and eviscerated Do you understand how you got here?"

Brennan replied that he has indeed been "pilloried as an example of the deep state." To which Todd exclaimed indignantly: "Well, at this point, it's a campaign to destroy the credibility of the intelligence community. Even now, Senator Johnson would not affirm that he trusted the CIA and FBI right now. What does that say about those two agencies right now and their ability to conduct the work of protecting America?"

Brennan took the opportunity provided by Todd to denounce the "disinformation" that is "inundating the airwaves," singling out "social media platforms," with the implication that media sources that do not disseminate the CIA line should be shut down or censored. "

Grey finishes with a brief resumé of Brennan's fascistic Imperial crimes.

From MTP on Twitter:

WATCH: In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, @SenRonJohnson (R-Wis.) turns questions about President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president into unfounded attacks on Democrats. #MTP https://t.co/tjLwXg1o8H pic.twitter.com/xf8UdbiN0m

-- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) October 6, 2019

WATCH: Former CIA Director @JohnBrennan : GOP senators are "running scared."

"[Donald Trump] is the typical bully. ...Now, I have become the ... example of the deep state." #MTP #IfItsSunday pic.twitter.com/tFXLDPh0Lo

-- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) October 6, 2019

WATCH: @ChrisMurphyCT responds to @senronjohnson 's comments earlier on Meet the Press. #MTP

"This entire country should be scared that at a moment when we need patriots, what we are getting is blind partisan loyalty." pic.twitter.com/Fvq2OAriKo

-- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) October 6, 2019

WATCH: Another whistleblower seems ready to come forward in Trump-Ukraine scandal #MTP .

"There seems to be a second whistleblower who's poised to come forward. Does this whistleblower change the conversation?" pic.twitter.com/Z87c5zoS02

-- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) October 6, 2019

(cross-posted from Café Babylon )

[Oct 09, 2019] Does it bother anybody that it is the CIA that is interfering in US elections?

Oct 09, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH -> kurt... , October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM

Yeah, the whole Biden corruption stuff has been debunked just like the Trump-Putin conspiracy. But lots of people still believe one debunking or the other. It all depends on which side of the infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and byzantine.

Personally, I'd love to know the origins of the Trump-Putin conspiracy and why a former head of the CIA officer was on the front lines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html

And while we're at it, get a handle on what Hunter Biden, Biden's bundler, and the CIA friendly former president of Poland were all doing on Burisma's board ostensibly with no knowledge of it all from Obama's point man on Ukraine--Joe Biden.

BTW. Here's a blast from the past exploring Hunter Biden's suspicious dealings in Ukraine. Read it and wonder
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/09/from-2014-r-hunter-biden-should-declare-who-really-owns-his-new-ukrainian-employer-burisma-holdings.html

Doesn't it bother anybody that the CIA seems to be interfering in US elections?

ilsm -> JohnH... , October 01, 2019 at 02:17 PM
For democrats "conspiracy theory" only applies to anyone looking askance at the swamp.

It is national security, DUDE. You cannot investigate what the swamp things do or did in 2016!

Dude, for democrats the swamp must abide, the republic cannot survive if the CIA/FBI spooks cannot practice on GOP campaigns!

Sadly, the Obama swamp is no better than the French Ministry of Defense in May 1940.

Drain the swamp. DoJ IG still working and US Attorney Durham is building cases!

Tired of having to listen to Howie Carr to get anything about the dodgy dossier, paid by DNC and who cannot find what!

[Oct 09, 2019] If he s a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over.

The CIA officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
Notable quotes:
"... If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. ..."
Oct 09, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH -> kurt... , October 01, 2019 at 02:25 PM

From a former CIA whistleblower: "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower is supposed to go through the chain of command as the current whistleblower did...

So even if he is a legitimate whistleblower, the CIA officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/

Strange, very strange and suspicious, too, particularly since Mike Morrell, former head of the CIA, helped start the campaign against Trump?

Do we really want spooks meddling in domestic politics?

[Oct 09, 2019] Schiff role in Ukrainegate

Notable quotes:
"... To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday. ..."
"... take two shots ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... take eight shots ..."
"... Politico ..."
"... Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection ..."
Oct 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

To review; the wheels of impeachment were set in motion after the original whistleblower, a CIA officer, approached House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's office with second-hand information (a contact Schiff lied about ) that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."

One of Schiff's aides then directed the whistleblower, a registered Democrat, to a Democratic operative attorney worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. The CIA officer then filed a whistleblower complaint on a recently altered form which now allows for the submission of second-hand information.

To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday.

How visibly shaken are we talking about?

According to a memo written by the first whistleblower on July 26, the day after the Trump-Zelensky call, the White House official said the call was "crazy," "frightening" and "completely lacking in substance related to national security."

Meanwhile, the actual whistleblower complaint claims:

( take two shots )

So let's take a look at the 'pressure' impeachment-hungry Democrats continue to claim Trump applied:

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it . I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it . As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible . "

The transcript makes clear no such pressure was applied, while Zelensky himself publicly stated that " nobody pushed me " to investigate matters requested by the Trump administration and Rudy Giuliani. Democrats have also claimed that nearly $400 million in US military aid was paused in order to use as leverage to kick start an investigation, however that theory has been relegated to at least the side-burner after it emerged that Zelensky had no clue it was being withheld at the time of the call.

Whatever the case, Democrats appear to be following the original script - as though Trump never released the transcript and all we know comes from inaccurate reporting first peddled through MSM outlets .

For example - the Washington Post 's original reporting from September 18th, when the whistleblower story broke:

"Trump's interaction with the foreign leader included a "promise" "

The Wall Street Journal on September 21:

"President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, according to people familiar with the matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani"

( take eight shots )

Yet, with the record having been set straight by both the transcript and Zelensky, and the CIA whistleblower's credibility in tatters, Democrats appear to have passed the point of no return - with a few realizing that the GOP-controlled Senate could flip the impeachment effort on Democrats by airing the Bidens' dirty laundry along with other 'matters' in a very public trial going into the 2020 election.

Conspiracies everywhere

After Robert Mueller and the FBI took more than three years to prove an actual "conspiracy theory" that Trump was 'colluding' with Russia, the Times describes documented Ukrainian election meddling in 2016 as just that - writing that the whistleblower "detailed key aspects of the [Trump-Zelensky] conversation, including Mr. Trump's request for investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, and a conspiracy theory about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. "

( take a shot )

As a matter of fact, a DNC operative did coordinate with Ukrainians to meddle in the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton, as has been by now widely reported . Veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa worked directly with the Ukrainian Embassy in the United States, along with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, to target Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort according to Politico .

" They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa ," said Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the embassy at the time, adding "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.

"If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September," Telizhenko recalls Chalupa saying.

Thanks to Chalupa's outreach on behalf of Clinton and the DNC, Artem Sytnyk , Ukraine's Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU - which Joe Biden helped form) and lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko released a "black ledger" containing off-book payments to Manafort . In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Sytnyk and Leshchenko " acted illegally " by releasing Manafort's name, according to the Kiev post ( Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection ).

There's your "conspiracy theory."


Mute Button , 1 minute ago link

Advise to the Democrats.

Drop the chalupa.

Warthog777 , 4 minutes ago link

visibly shaken... Reminds me of "I strenously object"...

You gotta be shittin me.

ConqueringFools , 12 minutes ago link

LOL haha.......American leadership are a bunch of eunuchs! My god.......our inner cities are basically third world shitholes.........we've got ****** shaboons slashing patrons throats in McDonald's and some grown man snowflake is "visibly shaken" by a goddamn nothing burger of a phone call between Presidents? Fuk outta here!

Obi-jonKenobi , 13 minutes ago link

It's being reported this week by the AP and others that Energy Secretary Rick Perry was involved in pressuring Ukrainian president Zelensky to place hand-picked allies of Trump on the board of the state gas company, Naftogaz, in order to steer business to insiders that have given big bucks to Trump and the Republicans, insiders like Soviet-born businessmen Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman whose company, Global Energy Producers LLC, made massive donations to Trump and the Republicans and which stood to make millions supplying liquid natural gas to Ukraine if allies placed on the board of Naftogaz could steer business to them. And Trump's so-called lawyer, Rudy Giuliani was in the middle of this facilitating the connections at the same time he was helping Trump pressure the new president to investigate the Bidens and other matters such as Manafort and CrowdStrike.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Don the Con and his band of thieves were involved in their own corruption in Ukraine even as they hypocritically pushed for an investigation into the Bidens. And although this is mostly the kind of corruption that involves insiders who made large political donations getting the payoff they hoped for - which is, unfortunately, perfectly legal - it wandered into possible criminal territory when it involved removing from positions of power people seen as obstructions to this attempt to gorge at the trough. That included the American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and members of the supervisory board of the state gas company, Naftogaz, who are supposed to help root out corruption. Not if Trumptards have their way!

And, laughably, Trump is using concern for corruption in the Ukrainian government as his cover for pushing for an investigation of the Bidens. And he hopes to get away with it with his usual barrage of chutzpah and lies . . . and with the help of the ignorant rubes that support him.

Confucious 222 , 11 minutes ago link

From 1999-2014, Ukraine donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than any other foreign country.

Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, & Romney all have children working for Ukrainian gas companies.

And all of the people I mentioned want Trump impeached. Are you connecting the dots yet?

i poop pink ice cream , 11 minutes ago link

"Meddling" in the U.S. election? 99% of the "meddling" comes from the the Israelis. When do they get called on the carpet?

Justapleb , 15 minutes ago link

Stop calling them whistleblowers.

They are alleged hearsay accusers. And we have the ******* TRANSCRIPT.

We are out of our minds. A person who did not hear the conversation, who did not read the transcript, is put before us instead of the transcript itself - and acting like they need witness protection.

Clown World.

blindfaith , 19 minutes ago link

ATTENTION TROLLS:

Rudy – For years Obama had a pay for play operation in his administration and it's disgusting and one of the reasons they're fighting so hard – If Biden comes out, so does Clinton come out and about three others. This goes right to the top of the Obama administration and the administration that says, 'I didn't have scandals' will be the most scandal ridden administration in our history. Obama didn't care about ethics. He didn't care otherwise it wouldn't happen.

Joe – That's right

Rudy – A Vice President should have been stopped from doing this by a President who had the slightest bit of integrity. But a Chicago 'pol' like Obama – pay for play eight times – millions of dollars to your Vice President [Biden] and hundreds of millions of dollars to your Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton]. They just bought the offices. Crooks.

Warm milk, hankies, and blankets for the trolls.

jmagoo , 23 minutes ago link

OK so I have come to the conclusion:

USA is made up of largely people who will vote Trump back in 2020, but because of this Democrats have no ability to control themselves and so lies, hear say, and just general jackholery will be their direction. Fine. I am cool with it bitch all you want, have fun making up lies to make yourselves feel better but most of the rest of us. We just feel bad for you, its like an emotional break down of someone you know. It's kinda scary, but at the same time I am no longer interested in rebuking you for being "off" you just have to seek help at this point. As for Trump, he's not the greatest president but the insanity of what's gone on has forced him to be our choice again because no party is willing to put forth middle of the ground candidates that appeal to the country as whole.

Remember this we're all Americans and we're just worried about you TDS people at this point, you need help. And Trump would be best to put the entire congress on hiatus as did Boris Johnson until the next election.

Moneycircus , 20 minutes ago link

Huey Long - there was a Democrat who at least had a platform.

Ex post facto logic says he was assassinated because he was a populist or worse. ********. He was assassinated because he appealed to the people and was thus a threat.

https://youtu.be/hphgHi6FD8k

KuriousKat , 23 minutes ago link

There was a time Dems in Government stood for something..

In examining the CIA's past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.
Sen.Frank Church

He became an important figure in American foreign policy and chaired the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1979 to 1981. He was one of the first Senators to publicly oppose the Vietnam War , and co-sponsored legislation to curtail the war. In 1975, Church led the Church Committee, which inspired the passage of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence .

WTF happened to Them...

They took a beautiful thing and turned it against us..unrecognizable..

[Oct 08, 2019] Robert Reich as a despicable neoliberal stooge who pushed lies and distortions bout Ukrainegate

Ukraine is not an independent country. It is a de-facto colony of the USA. Trump just ordered his subordinate (in a very polite ) term to conduct investigation of criminal behaviour of Biden family.
Not defending Trump by Robert is "full of Schiff"
Oct 08, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".

The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the published version</