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.
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
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):
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.
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.
MI6 via Steele Dossier and possible help with surveillance of Trump Team and Trump tower.
NSA -- via intercepting Trump team communications and participating (although via selected by Brennan few analysts) in "17 agencies memo".
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 )
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.
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:
Creation of Steele dossier which later was the key for obtaining the warrant in FICA courst for some members of Trump team
and launching "Russiagate" investigation against Trump.
The use of DNC leak -- presenting it as DNC hack and implicating Russians (via Crowdstrike)
Unleashing vicious witch hunt against Trump and Russia in MSM based on completely unproved charges.
Obtaining FICA order to wiretap members of Trump team (might also be done via MI6, details are currently unclear).
Creation of 17 agencies memo (Brenna and Clapper) with the direct goal of fueling Russiagate and prepare the ground for Trump
impeachment or trumped charges.
Attempt to hijack election college.
Publishing Steele dossier and pother attempts disrupt inauguration.
Removal of Flynn from Trump team and charging him with the collision with Russians.
Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit.
The basic chronology might be as following (partially based on Stefan Molyneux YouTube presentation):
[Mar 02, 2015]: Hillary Clinton emailgate scandal broke lose.
NYT reports that "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct
government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated
federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. Mrs.
Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department.
Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time,
as required by the Federal Records Act"
[Jun 13, 2015]:CrowdStrike was financed to the tune of $100 million by Google Capital. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a
staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Oct ?? 2015]:Fusion GPS became key anti-Trump player -- the dirt digger. During the Republican
primary campaign, The
Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor
Paul Singer, hired the
American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition
research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.
Please note that Christopher Steele at this time is not yet in the picture. This will happen six months later when the
investigation became funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC.
For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became
the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.
[Mar ??, 2016]: Fusion GPS supposedly approached the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee
through the law firm Perkins Coie offering to continue their opposition research into Donald Trump in return for payment.[Wikipedia]
[Apr ??, 2016]: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee used lawyer Marc E. Elias to retain and
fund Fusion GPS. At this time Christopher Steele came into picture, may be via his ties with McCabe and FBI activities to derail
Trump. In April 2016, the investigation contract
and funding were taken over by Marc Elias, a partner in
the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and
head of its Political Law practice. Elias was the attorney of record for the
Committee (DNC) and the
Clinton presidential campaign.In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis Business
Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, and used by them to produce the dossier.Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS has stated
that Steele did not pay to any of his sources.[Wikipedia]
[Apr-Jun, 2016]: Wikileaks obtains something like 53,000 [DNC] emails and 17,000 attachments
[Jun ??, 2016]: After Wikileaks possession of leaked emails became known, a cover-up operation was started by
DNC and Clinton campaign. The decision was made to used Russia as a scapegoat for the leak accusing them in hacking. False
flag operation using Crowdstrike was staged to make this plausible. Dirty former MI6 officer Christopher Steele (who was expelled from Moscow for espionage more then 20
years ago and as such is a "person non grata" in Moscow) and his company Orbis Business Intelligence are hired
by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s possible connections to Russia. This company previously was used to Statement from Christopher Steele: “Between June
and early November 2016 Orbis was engaged by Fusion to prepare a series of confidential memoranda based on intelligence
concerning Russian efforts to influence the US Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump.”
[Jun 9, 2016]:Entrapment plot against Trump Jr. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort attended a meeting arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone
with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (the client of Fusion FPS) supposedly for opposition
research on Hillary Clinton, but Veselnitskaya instead focused on the opposition to the Magnitsky Act. President Trump's Outside
Counsel Mark Corallo later remarked “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the
president and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”
Crowdstrike investigates DNC leaks and promptly attributes it to Russians. FBI is deprived of any access to factual information and uses
Crowdstrike findings. After very damaging for Hillary DNC leak (iether by Seth Rich or some other disgruntled DNC
staffer) which proved corruption of DNC and the plot to deny Sanders any changed to become Democratic Party candidate, as well as
the level of control of DNC by Clintons, the decision was made to blame Russia for the lean (using Crowdstrike which has
connections both with CIA and FBI as well as Clinton team) and use Trump connection with Russia to undermine the prospect of his
election. The CrowdStrike attribution are not independently verified as the DNC refused to turn over its equipment to the FBI. .
The connection between CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie should raise additional questions. (Stefan Molyneux)
[Jun 14, 2016]:Russiagate smear campaign against Trump was launched in by major US MSM. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole
opposition research on Trump" which reported: “DNC leaders
were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their
information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.” “That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC
lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer
crime cases, called [CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry], whom he has known for many years. "Within 24 hours, Crowdstrike had
installed software on the DNC’s computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.
" Charging good money after the horse has left the barn; it's funny that clearly political action of "attribution"
(qualified cyber adversary like CIA leaves zero traces in such cases or deliberately leaves false traces ) is hidden under tech
jargon -- my God, a "super sophisticated" system was installed that now, when intruders are long gone will truck them ;-). From
presentations available on YouTube Crowdstrike are typical security snake oil salesmen promising a lot but delivering very
little (much like ISS in the past). It is impossible fully compensate for architectural flaws of Windows without
imposing "military base" regime which is unacceptable for organizations like DNC. Moreover good adversary would use Crowdstrike
software for perpetration much like CIA used Kaspersky software in the past.
[Jun 15, 2016]: A blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0
claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from
[Jun 26, 2016] Bill Clinton has a 30 min meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch
at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport. The encounter took place ahead of the public release Tuesday morning of
the House Benghazi Committee's report on the 2012 attack on a US consulate in Libya. the meeting looks like a quid pro quo
of "protect Hillary and you'll get a new great job Loretta under Hillary administration"...
[Jun 30, 2016] The new about the meeting reached MSM. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said on
The Mike Gallagher Show that the meeting was “so terrible” and “one of the big stories of this week, of this month, of this
year.” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tweeted: “Lynch & Clinton: Conflict of interest? An attorney, cannot represent two
parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict.”
LA Times. Later it became known that Loretta Lunch instructed Comey to call Hillary email scandal "a matter".
During May 2017 testimony James Comey, that it marking the moment he decided that the Department of Justice was not capable
of an independent investigation into Hillary Clinton.
The moment Comey lost faith in DOJ's Clinton probe - CNNPolitics
[Jul 02, 2016]: Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Peter Strzok, who gave her special "HQ treatment". The interview lasted approximately three and a half
hours and was not conducted under oath. No transcripts of the meeting exist. Later Hillary Clinton claimed that she gave a "voluntary interview" to the FBI today
regarding her email arrangements while she was secretary of state. James Comey admitted: Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill
Clinton was the turning point in the email investigation.
Business Insider Director Comey claimed that she did not lied to FBI during
this interview. Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton, nor did he
talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. While there was no recording or full transcript of the interview,
there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress.
[Jul 06, 2016]: Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case based on the FBI’s recommendation. Justice Department
formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges -
LA Times. Atty. Gen Loretta Lynch said she had met late Wednesday with Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted
[Jul 10, 2016]: Seth Rich was killed.
[Jul 22, 2016]: Wikipeak published leaks emails and attachments. A cache of more than 19,000 e-mails was leaked
on July 22, 2016.
[Jul 22, 2016]:Another false flag operation to implicate Russians ? Major MSM report about previous unknown hacker going by the moniker "Guccifer
2.0" who claimed on a WordPress-hosted blog to have been
acting alone in hacking the DNC. Might be a false flag operation by rogue elements of the US intelligence services, a part of effort to implicate Russians in DNC leak.
[Jul 24, 2016]: It became clear the DNC has thrown Sanders under the bus, but the role of FBI is depriving him from
being Democratic Party candidate still remains hidden.Sanders urged Wasserman
Schultz to resign following the leaks and stated that he was "disappointed" by the DNC email leaks, but said that he was "not shocked.
In reality he was robbed in daylight. But not only by Wasserman Schultz but also by the "gang of three at FBI who
essentially prevented his nomination by swiping the dirt about Hillary Clinton handing of classified emails on the private email
server under the carpet. Peter Strzok supposedly played outside role in this fateful decision. But that became known only in
[Jul 25, 2016]: Democratic Convention 2016 opens in at the
Center in PhiladelphiaHillary became
the Democratic party nominee. Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to reside due
to her role in derailing Sanders candidacy. Sanders switched camps and endorsed Hillary Clinton instead of fighting her
nomination. As Trump sarcastically commented about Sanders endorsement of Hillary: 'Bernie is now
officially part of the rigged system': Trump unloads on Sanders for 'selling out,' says it's like Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Donald Trump unloads on Bernie Sanders for 'selling out' Daily Mail Online
[Jul 25, 2016]:The
that it would investigate the DNC hack.
The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to
Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the
emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."
(Wikipedia aka Ciapedia ;-)
[Jul ??, 2016]Steele dossier reaches FBI. Steele, on his own initiative, supplied a report he had written to an FBI agent
in Rome. His
contact at the FBI was the same senior agent with whom he had worked when investigating the FIFA scandal. By
early October 2016, he had grown frustrated at the slow rate of progress by the FBI investigation, and cut off further contact
with the FBI.
At this point Steele dossier got to the desk of Peter Strzok, adamantly anti-Trump FBI
official with strong links to CIA and probably personally Brennan.
[July ??, 2016]Crowdstrike attribution is used for increasing the scope of vicious anti-Russian campaign was launched in the media with the full support and encouragement of Obama administration
to swipe the dirt about DNC pushing Sanders under the bus and Clinton emailgate scandal as well as the problem with Hillary
[Aug 25, 2016]:Brennan makes the "all in" move adopting a highly political role and endorsing
Steele dossier: according to NYT reports, CIA Director John Brennan briefed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on ,
and alleged that “unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.” (Stefan Molyneux)
[Aug ??, 2016]: Reid had
written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter
Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had
recently visited Moscow.
[Sep ??, 2016]: Steele, following instructions from Fusion GPs briefed several MSM. On Sep 23, 2016 Yahoo News published an
article about possibilities of ties between Carter Page and Kremlin.
[Sep ??, 2016]Following a report from the Daily Mail in September 2016, Weiner was investigated by the FBI for
sexting with a 15-year-old girl. His laptop was seized and emails related to the
Clinton email scandal were found on it, causing a controversy late in the presidential election. On May 19, 2017, Weiner
pled guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor. His wife,
Huma Abedin, filed for divorce prior to Weiner's
guilty plea. In September, he was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. On November 6, 2017, Weiner began his sentence.
[Sep ?? 2016]: FBI applied to FISA court to establish surveillance on unknown number of members of Trump team (at
least Carter Page) possibly using Steele dossier as a pretext.
Looks like rogue elements in FBI used "Steele Dossier" to obtain court order for wiretapping some members of
Trump team such as Carter Page (Strzokgate).
With the dirt explicitly planned to be used as "insurance" in case of Trump victory.
[Sep ??, 2016]: FISA warrant was authorized against Page, just after he left the Trump campaign (WaPo).
[Oct 7, 2016]: Damaging for Trump "17 agencies memo" surfaced. This "17 agencies memo" was
cooked by Brennan (with possible support of Clapper) by using small pre-selected team of "analysts" (in which probably Peter
Strzok played the leading role) and presented as the view of the whole US intelligence community. On October
7, 2016 . On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued
a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is
made up of 16 agencies, in
addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Yes,
17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking
The 17 agencies memo was used for amplification of the anti-Russian campaign in MSM. Neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA reached high pitch.
[Oct ??, 2016]: The FBI reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work. Looks like the agreement
never materialized as Steele was unable to provide the necessary verification for his claims.
[Oct ?? 2016]: [Wikipedia propagates questionable info about how David Corn got the
dossier, in view of role of Top FBI Lawyer Who Was
Demoted Now Linked To Leaking Bogus Trump Dossier to MSM] On instructions from Fusion PGS Steele personally compiled 33 pages and passed on what he discovered so far to the anti-Trump reporter
David Corn from Mother Jones magazine.[Wikipedia].
On Dec 22, 2017 it became known that another possible source was not Steele but FBI Lawyer James Baker who
communicated with David Corn at this time and was demoted later for the leak.
[Oct 28, 2016]: Due to the pressure from NYC FBI office who uncovered Comey announced that the investigation into Hillary "bathroom" email server is resumed based on new
emails uncovered in probe into Anthony Wiener sexing scandal (which actually were available to FBI since September, so "why now"?
). FBI reopening
investigation into Hillary private email server - Business Insider. Strzok was assigned to conduct the investigation
with predictable results. But the problem with this announcement is that it was made just a 10 days before the elections and
violates the notion of "quite period" before election where such news should not be released. Looks like Comey has second
thoughts after throwing Sanders under the bus.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former
intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and
assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”
It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his
Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to
Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based
on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was “shock and horror.” The FBI, after receiving the first
memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American
associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the
material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which
referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. “It’s quite
clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on,” he says.
“This is something of huge significance, way above party politics,” the former intelligence officer comments. “I think
[Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well.”
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, “I have
nothing to do with Russia.”
[Nov 06, 2016]:WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.
(Wikipedia), This was another deliberate attempt to influence an election as this should be a "quite" period" for such things.
Like Trump, Flynn sees a military ally in controversial Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he was seated next to at a
banquet in Moscow last year. Flynn has also appeared several times on the state-owned TV station, Russia Today, which the U.S.
State Department has accused of being a mouthpiece for Putin.
... ... ...
Flynn's convention appearance puzzled many generals he had served with, as it broke their unofficial code of not picking
sides in presidential races.
Flynn gained further notoriety when he retweeted an anti-Semitic tweet that said, "Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore." He later
apologized for the retweet, claiming it was a "mistake."
Obama administration engaged in fierce campaign of "unmasking" the result of surveillance of Trump team in which
several members of its administration participated (Susan Rice in primary role). With the goal of discrediting Trump team
and specifically removal of Flynn from the team.
However, there are 20 high-ranking officials within the U.S. government who have to power to approve requests to reveal
those identities if they deem that information is necessary to understanding the value of the intelligence. That process is
called "unmasking," and Rice had the authority to do so while serving as national security adviser.
[Nov ??, 2016]: McCain got the dossier and spread it within Washington circles.
[Dec 09, 2016]: President Obama ordered the entire
States Intelligence Community to conduct an investigation into Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. election — and
provide a report before he leaves office on January 20, 2017
[Dec 29, 2016]: Obama makes his last New Year present to Russia a fuels Russiagate hysteria. He expelled 35 Russian
diplomats and seized Russian property in the USA under the pretext of Russia influencing
the US Presidential elections.
Along with 17 agencies memo that fueled further neo-McCarthyism campaign again Russia and damaged Trump team.
Another entrapment plot -- this time against Flynn: Attempt of Flynn to limit the damage of the this move later were used for Flynn removal from the Trump team. All
his conversation were wiretapped and later leaked. In a way this was entrapment as the conversations were recorded. later
the recoding were used first to oust Flynn from Trump team and later by Mueller to
indict him on technical charge of lying to FBI to get additional dirt of Trump.
[Early January 2017]: a two-page summary of the Trump dossier was presented to President Barack Obama and
President-elect Donald Trump in meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA
Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
Christopher Steele - Wikipedia
[Jan 10, 2017]: Steele goes into hiding.
[Jan 10, 2017]: Just before inauguration, Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. Clinton claimed to be
unaware and unconnected to the event. [Wikipedia]
On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations
that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not
publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".
Following the CNN report,BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier that it said was the
basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump
that could be used to blackmail him.
NBC reported that a senior U.S. intelligence official said that Trump had not been previously briefed on the contents of the
although a CNN report said that a statement released by
James Clapper in early January confirmed that the
synopsis existed and had been compiled for Trump.
[Jan 20, 2017]: Trump inauguration was accompanied some protests like is common in color revolution scenarios, but
is atypical for the US inauguration. They did failed to achieve the necessary scale in order to serve as a "trigger for
further disturbances" nessesary to trigger further color revolution protests. There were no charges of policy brutality. Only 217 protesters were arrested.
Trump inauguration protest
damages parts of downtown Washington - CBS News
The bulk of the criminal acts happened at 10:30 a.m. when 400 to 500 people on 13th Street destroyed property, Interim
Police Chief Peter Newsham said. The protesters were armed with crowbars and threw objects at people and businesses,
destroying storefronts and damaging vehicles. Police used pepper spray to diffuse the situation.
[Jan 21, 2017]:Campaign for Flynn removal from Trump team started. After inauguration dirt of several member of Trump team was surfaced
and first of all on general Flynn (who was important link to intelligence agencies in Trump administration) General Flynn served
director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014. The fact the
Flynn lobbied Russians to take more consolatory stance on Israel actions and not to retaliate for expulsion of 35 diplomats will
become known much later. At this time his meetings are presented by MSM as a clear collision with the direct goal to discredit
him and remove him from the team.
[Jan 23, 2017]: Was this connected with Trump team wiretapping? Robert Hannigan, the director of GCHQ, has
resigned from his job as head of one of the three Government intelligence agencies after just two years.GCHQ would only say that Mr Hannigan had left his post for "personal reasons" and that he was not sacked or subject to
disciplinary proceedings. He had been director general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office before that. At the time
he took on the job, GCHQ had been forced onto the defensive following the leak of information about mass surveillance by Edward
Snowden, a former CIA employee.
GCHQ boss Robert
Hannigan quits for 'personal reasons' after just two years
[Feb 13, 2017]: The first victim of Russiagate -- former general Flynn was forced to resign from Trump administration.
[Mar 22, 2017]: Politico published an article entitled "Nunes claims some Trump transition
messages were intercepted" reporting: "House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent
surveillance following November’s presidential
election." Immediately Nunes get under fire and gets investigated.
[Apr 2, 2017]: Mike Cernovich claimed that Susan Rice was identified as the person who unmasked members of Trump
[May 8, 2017]: Comey was fired by Trump. Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited
politically from that inquiry and had once praised Mr. Comey for his “guts” in his pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign
[May 9-May 17, 2017]: The "appointment of the special prosecutor" gambit was launched. After the success with the removal
of Flynn (who might still have good connections with Military intelligence as as such was especially dangerous for plotters
appointment of the special prosecutor gambit was engineered. The included usage of Comey as sacrificed pawn and was supported by
the atmosphere of NeoMcCartyism already created in the country
and rogue elements in the Department of justice.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the
day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created
documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s
contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
[May 17, 2017]: Rosenstein appoints Mueller as the Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump-Russia connections and
possible Russia influence on the elections. With the indirect goal for force Trump resignation: shortly before
Mueller was interviews by Trump for the position of the director of FBI and was rejected. Now Comey destiny as a
leaker of government information hinged on the results on Mueller investigation. And they are long time friends.
Mr. Comey revealed for the first time that he turned over memos about his conversations with Mr. Trump to the special counsel,
Robert S. Mueller III.
[May ??, 2017]: Mueller took his task to provide a pretext to depose Trump seriously and hired rabid anti-Trump prosecutors including Peter Strzok and Andrew Weissmann (whom NYT called
Mueller’s Legal Pit Bull) creating
witch-hunt that paralyzed Trump administration. As if it is difficult to find less biased competent prosecutors in
this country. In other words Mueller cards were revealed.
[Jun 8, 2017]:During his testimony Comey before before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Comey admitted to be the source of leaks to media which triggered the appointment of the Special Prosecutor by
Rosenstein, but refused to answer question about FBI role in propagating and financing Steele dossier.
Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time that the FBI. was investigating Trump team but personally Mr. Trump. .
Comey Testimony The 8 Big Questions James Comey Refused
[July ??, 2017]: Arrest of Imran Awan and possible role of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz in
organizing private spying on the members of Congress for the benefits of DNC and Democratic Party.
[July 20, 2017] FBI finally produced text messages from Strzok to Lisa Page that Horowitz office requested. Those
texts uncovered by Inspector General provided ample information about the level of his bias against Trump
[July ?? 2017]: Peter Strzok his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page
leaves Mueller team
[July 27, 2017]: Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about Peter Strzok text messages to Lisa Page
[Aug ??, 2017]: Peter Strzok was quietly removed from the Mueller investigation and demoted in FBI. Neither
Rosenstein, no Congress were informed.
[Oct 18, 2017]:Three Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth in response to subpoenas to testify before the House
"In August, Simpson, the point-man on the dossier project, met with the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours. That meeting was
held after Simpson and Fusion threatened to plead the Fifth in response to a subpoena threat from the Judiciary panel."
[Oct 21, 2017]: Fusion GPS that financed Steele dossier asks court to stop lawmakers from seeing financial records
[Oct 25, 2017]:It was revealed that Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC via Fusion GPS.
Hillary Camp Paid For Fusion GPS Steele Dossier – FBI Covered Steele’s Travel Expenses, The WaPo article claims the 2016
presidential campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS
dossier alleging Russian ties with the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and sordid phony personal smears of
Trump. The Post reported that Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $168K to
continue researching Trump after a Republican donor who originally funded the research pulled out in April 2016.The Clinton
campaign and the DNC continued to fund Steele’s research through the end of October.
The Dirty Truth About the Steele Dossier
[Nov 6, 2017]: Flynn was indicted by Mueller team along with another hapless staffer. Business Insider
The indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly
intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive.
[Dec 1, 2017]:Michael Flynn pleads guilty to
lying to FBI. He was previously entrapeed by Peter Strzok and charged with lying to FBI. This move by-and-large was viewed as
a desperate attempt of Mueller to survive under the barrage of revelations about Peter Strzok. And it suceccededed. Mueller probe
survives althouth he personally from this point was discredited as a partisan hack (which he was since 9/11).
[Dec 10, 2017]: Suspicions about the anti-trump plot within Justice Department and several intelligence agencies including
FBI were openly voiced during Congressional hearings. The "insurance policy" email suggested the existence of a
conspiracy within the FBI to rig the Presidential Election.
During the exchanges between Wray
and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say:
Here’s what I think — I think Peter Strozk (sic)… Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he’s the guy who took the
application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the
Democrats’ campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can
take it to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
[Dec 11, 2017]: During his interview Michael Morell admitted the existence of the plot to remove Trump within
intelligence agencies. Conservative
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while
secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's
defenders, it may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways
they're trying to do that.
[Dec 19, 2017]:One of the central figures in "anti-Trump putsch" within Justice Department and intelligence agencies
Andrew McCabe was grilled for seven and a half hours by House Republicans in Russia meddling probe -
“I’ll be a little bit surprised if [Mr.
McCabe‘s] still an employee of the FBI this
time next week,” Mr. Gowdy told Fox News in a separate interview.
Now it looks like there is investigation of Mueller collision with the "FBI gang of
three" along with Mueller investigation of Trump. this became rteally convoluted but the degrees of freedom for Mueller
were severy cut now.
[Dec 20, 2017]: Several other key figures connected with "insurance policy" email are expected to testify under
oath to House intelligence committee. The list include Ohr, his wide, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
[Dec 22, 2017] More than 170 House Democrats signed a
letter supporting Mueller this week, and Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, took to the
floor of the Senate on Wednesday to warn that ousting the special counsel could spark a constitutional crisis.
[Dec 23, 2017]: Andrew McCabe announced his intention to resign from FBI in 90 days (when he can get full
pension). Trump sarcastically commented on this decision in a twit.
[Dec 26, 2017]: Damage control efforts and attempt to regroup and save Mueller skin in view of Peter Strzok role in the
Hillary email server investigation and pushing Steele dossier started. NYT tried to lower the expectations about year and half "Russiagate" investigation by rabidly
anti-Trump team does not provide enough information to change President with "collision" (BTW there is no such rime in Us
criminal codex). Now NYT pleads "give me dirt, any dirt on Trump" The End of Trump and
the End of Days - The New York Times:
Fury isn’t strategy, and there’s no need to extrapolate beyond the facts already in our possession. Take the inquiries into
the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. They could screech to a halt tomorrow and we’d be left with more than enough
evidence of corrupt business dealings, conflicts of interest, shady back channels, awful judgment and outright lies among
Trump’s intimates to present voters with a powerful case against his fitness for office.
But by obsessing over clear “collusion” and insisting on visible puppet strings by which Vladimir Putin controlled
Trump, we have set the bar dangerously high. Mueller’s ultimate findings could be plenty ugly and still be deemed
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
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.
... ... ...
Mr. Brennan’s May 23 testimony shows that it was his actions that
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
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
revolutions in various parts of the globe, and, especially, in former Soviet Union and its
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.
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
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
... 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.
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.
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
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
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
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;
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.
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
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
The dossier contains salacious material and allegations of collusion against President
We also have Loretta Lynch tarmac story and her recommendation to Comey to call Clinton email investigation "a matter".
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.")
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
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.
"... in reality -- the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it. ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump ..."
"... When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America. America will triumph over you. ..."
"... Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." ..."
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? --
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do -- the SAS are absolutely charming -- ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that -- in reality -- the security services
have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the
firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack
against Trump :
" When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your
rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy
America. America will triumph over you. "
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
Barely a day after President Trump outraged his political opponents by calling out Special
Counsel Robert Mueller by name in a series of angry tweets,
the Washington Post is reporting that the president's legal team has provided written
descriptions of certain key moments to the Mueller probe as they push to limit the scope of a
presidential interview, should they agree to one.
According to the
report, Trump has reportedly told aides that he's "champing at the bit" to sit for an
interview. But his lawyers, who are carefully negotiating terms, have sought to restrain the
president, worried he might inadvertently perjure himself or - worse - accidentally walk into a
Given the time-sensitive nature of the investigation (Trump and his allies would like it to
end as swiftly as possible) Trump on Monday
added storied Washington lawyer Joseph diGenova, the husband of former Reagan Justice
Department official and former Senate Intelligence Committee chief counsel Victoria Toensing,
to his legal team.
Various readers, fans, blog commenters, Facebook trolls, and
auditors twanged on me all last week about my continuing interest in the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria,
though there is no particular consensus of complaint among them -- except for a general "shut up,
already" motif. For the record, I'm far more interested in the hysteria itself than the
Russia-meddled-in the-election case, which I consider to be hardly any case at all beyond 13 Russian
The hysteria, on the other hand, ought to be a matter of grave concern,
appears more and more to have been engineered by America's own intel community, its handmaidens in the
Dept of Justice, and the twilight's last gleamings of the Obama White House, and now it has shoved
this country in the direction of war at a time when civilian authority over the US military looks
sketchy at best.
This country faces manifold other problems that are certain to reduce the
national standard of living and disrupt the operations of an excessively complex and dishonest
and the last thing America needs is a national war-dance over trumped-up grievances
The RussiaRussiaRussia narrative has unspooled since Christmas and is blowing back badly
through the FBI,
now with the firing (for cause) of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe hours short
of his official retirement (and inches from the golden ring of his pension). He was axed on the
recommendation of his own colleagues in the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, and they may
have been influenced by the as-yet-unreleased report of the FBI Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,
due out shortly.
The record of misbehavior and "collusion" between the highest ranks of the FBI, the
the Clinton campaign, several top political law firms, and a shady cast of
international blackmail-peddlars is
a six-lane Beltway-scale evidence trail compared to the
muddy mule track of Trump "collusion" with Russia.
It will be amazing if a big wad of criminal cases are not dealt out of it, even as
New York Times
sticks its fingers in its ears and goes, "La-la-la-la-la ."
It now appears that Mr. McCabe's statements post-firing tend to
incriminate his former
boss, FBI Director James Comey
-- who is about to embark, embarrassingly perhaps, on a tour
for his self-exculpating book,
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership
A great aura of sanctimony surrounds the FBI these days.
Even the news pundits
seem to have forgotten the long, twisted reign of J. Edgar Hoover (1924 – 1972), a dangerous rogue who
excelled at political blackmail. And why, these days, would any sane American take pronouncements from
the CIA and NSA at face value?
What seems to have gone on in the RussiaRussiaRussia matter
is that various parts of the executive branch in the last months under Mr. Obama gave each other tacit
permission, wink-wink, to do anything necessary to stuff HRC into the White House and, failing that,
to derail her opponent, the Golden Golem of Greatness.
The obvious lesson in all this huggermugger is that the ends don't justify the means.
there are basically two routes through this mess
One is that
the misdeeds of FBI officers, Department of Justice lawyers, and Intel
agency executives get adjudicated by normal means,
namely, grand juries and courts. That
would have the salutary effect of cleansing government agencies and shoring up what's left of their
credibility at a time when faith in institutions hangs in the balance.
The second route would be for the authorities to ignore any formal response to an evermore
self-evident trail of crimes, and to
allow all that political energy to be funneled into
manufactured hysteria and eventually a phony provocation of war with Russia
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
"... So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man? ..."
"... None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next? ..."
"... "If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics ..."
Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf
of the USA but rather to its own ends. And, in this realization, comes a jaded view of both the
CIA and the government it represents.
This realization may have begun with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren
Commission, a congressional investigation was convened. The commission concluded there was a
single lone shooter, a fringe outcast, Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone in the assassination
of the president. Many felt, in light of the facts, that the Warren Commission was a cover up
of what really went down on November 22, 1963, in Houston, Texas.
In 1976, the Congress reopened the Kennedy investigation. They created The United States
House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to investigate the
assassination of John F. Kennedy (and Martin Luther King Jr.).
The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and determined the Warren Commission was faulty
and there was more than one shooter and there was indeed a conspiracy to kill the president. So
much for the official narrative of the Warren Commission.
Why the Warren Commission cover up back then that even the Congress in 1976 (HSCA) reported
was bogus? One theory April 25, 1966, The New York Times wrote, "And, President Kennedy, as the
enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of
his Administration, that he wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it
to the winds."
Kennedy was no fan of the Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles or his agency, and in the
autumn of 1961 he purged the C.I.A. of Dulles and his entourage. This included Deputy Director
for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. You do not mess with
Allen Dulles and the C.I A. Let's leave it at that. Kennedy was dead within two years.
Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This
time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured
buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly
how the buildings came down.
By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed a
petition for this investigation. If one looks at controlled demolitions and how the buildings
actually came down it is obvious the collapse was not due to an airplane flying into the
buildings, but rather a controlled demolition. 2,300 architects and engineers with verified
credentials all testify that the narrative of the government is patently false and
scientifically implausible if not impossible.
At about nine a.m. the Twin Towers are crashed into and collapse. At about five twenty p.m.
that same day, Building Seven collapses. No planes fly into Building 7, it just collapses.
Again, the videos show a controlled demolition.
There are various theories as to why 7 WTC was taken down. Theories range from 7 WTC being
the operation center for the demolition of the Twin Towers to more nefarious motives. "
According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the
destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a
clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia
What is important to remember is that NO STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE HAS EVER TOTALLY COLLAPSED
DUE TO FIRE.
These are but two examples of hundreds where we have been mislead by the official narrative
of the government and its MSM news. Remember the Trump Dossier that was leaked and printed as
fact? Or, the death of Seth Rich, a "botched" robbery? Or, the list of 200 news outlets in the
USA that were Russian Propaganda fronts? All reported as fact by the New York Times and
Washington Post. All fake news by the MSM fed to an unsuspecting American people.
So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve
agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both
are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings
Shopping Center in Salibury.
As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all
must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story
after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our
Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was
not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap
in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic
monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media.
Teresa May called the act "reckless" and "indiscriminate", and basically said Putin put
innocent English bystanders at risk. She upped the ante by dismissing 23 Russian diplomats, the
largest such expulsion in thirty years.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused May of grandstanding in her
response to the incident. Russian news agency Interfax reported that The Kremlin denies
involvement in the nerve agent poisoning, insisting one motive was to complicate Russia's
hosting of the World Cup this summer. Ah, dear Kremin, the motive was much deeper than the
World Cup games, which were only a bonus to the attack.
So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader.
Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He
has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no
new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man?
None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take
him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be
reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he
is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next?
Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN tells us, "The United States of America believes that
Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade
nerve agent," Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session, blasting
the Russian government for flouting international law.
"If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be
the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York
or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics
The USA needs an enemy to foment fear to justify it's astronomical defense budget. It just
loves a good cold war. However, now that Russia is no longer a pinko commie nation to be
demonized, and is indeed a capitalist democracy, we have to resurrect a new straw man to
It is remarkable the degree to which the liberal left has bought into this
industrial-military-complex narrative. The USA always has to be bombing someone, droning
someone or napalming someone to keep the monies flowing into the defense budget. Take a look at
our spending compared to Russia or other nations.
Alas, it is certainly not out of the question that the CIA was behind the attack. After this
amount of time Mr. Putin had nothing to gain in assassinating Mr. Skripal and his daughter. In
fact, he had a lot to lose. The CIA? They had a lot to gain, and nothing to lose. Never
underestimate the CIA and its brilliance in setting the narrative for its agenda. And, never
underestimate Mr. Putin in his resolve not to become their lapdog.
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York. She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.
A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights. She is a psychotherapist and
The first time I realized how low things would likely get was when Ruth Marcus, deputy editor of the Washington Post
, sent out the following tweet in
March of 2017, squealing with delight at the thought of a new Cold War with the world's other nuclear superpower: "So excited to
be watching The Americans, throwback to a simpler time when everyone considered Russia the enemy. Even the president."
Not only did Marcus's comment imply that it was great for the U.S. to have an enemy, but it specifically implied that there was
something particularly great about that enemy being Russia.
Since then, the public discourse has only gotten nastier. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who notoriously
perjured himself before Congress about warrantless spying on Americans –
stated on Meet the Press last
May that Russians were uniquely and "genetically" predisposed toward manipulative political activities. If Clapper or anyone else
in the public eye had made such a statement about Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Israelis, Chinese or just about any other group,
there would have been some push-back about the prejudice that it reflected and how it didn't correspond with enlightened liberal
values. But Clapper's comment passed with hardly a peep of protest.
More recently, John Sipher , a retired CIA station
chief who reportedly spent years in Russia – although at what point in time is unclear – was interviewed in Jane Mayer's recent New
trying to spin the Steele Dossier as somehow legitimate. On March 6, Sipher took to Twitter with the following
comment : "How can one not be a Russophobe?
Russia soft power is political warfare. Hard power is invading neighbors, hiding the death of civilians with chemical weapons and
threatening with doomsday nuclear weapons. And they kill the opposition at home. Name something positive."
In fairness to Sipher, he did backpedal somewhat after being challenged; however, the fact that his unfiltered blabbering reveals
such a deep antipathy toward Russians ("How can one not be a Russophobe?") and an initial assumption that he could get away with
saying it publicly is troubling.
Glenn Greenwald re-tweeted with a comment asking if Russians would soon acceptably be referred to as "rats and roaches." Another
person replied with: "Because they are
rats and roaches. What's the problem?"
This is just a small sampling of the anti-Russian comments and attitudes that pass, largely unremarked upon, in our media landscape.
There are, of course, the larger institutional influencers of culture doing their part to push anti-Russian bigotry in this already
contentious atmosphere. Red Sparrow , both the
book and the
movie , detail the escapades of a female
Russian spy. The story propagates the continued fetishization of Russian women based on the stereotype that they're all hot and frisky.
Furthermore, all those who work in Russian intelligence are evil and backwards rather than possibly being motivated by some kind
of patriotism, while all the American intel agents are paragons of virtue and seem like they just stepped out of an ad for Nick at
Nite's How to be Swell .
The recent Academy Awards continued their politically motivated trend of awarding Oscars for best documentary to films on topics
that just happen to coalesce nicely with Washington's latest adversarial policy. Last year it was the White Helmets film
to support the regime change meme in Syria. This year it's Icarus about the doping scandal in Russia.
Aaron Maté of The Real News joins Scott to discuss two of his latest pieces for The
Nation, " Hyping the Mueller
Indictment " and " What We've
Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate ." Maté explains why he thinks the Trump-Russia
collusion case is much ado about nothing and how Trump's pre-election attempts to de-escalate
tensions with Russia have been misconstrued as collusion. Scott and Maté then discuss
how the centrist left, with the help of Facebook and corporate media, is using the Russiagate
conspiracy to double down on the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic party.
Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said today that a highly anticipated report from
the DOJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz will contain " some pure TNT. " Horowitz has been
investigating the conduct of the FBI's top brass surrounding the 2016 election for over a year.
He also uncovered over 50,000
text messages between two anti-Trump / pro-Clinton FBI employees directly involved in the
exoneration of Clinton and the counterintelligence operation launched against the Trump
Swecker: " The behavior if it's manifested in the action with your thumb on the scale of a
particular investigation, one way or the other, that's borderline criminal behavior --
manipulating an investigation. I think this IG report is going to be particularly impactful,
more so than any of these useless congressional investigations. I think you're going to see
some pure TNT come out in this IG report."
The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files
after interviewing someone.
Horowitz is also reportedly homing in on McCabe's handling of the Anthony Weiner laptop
after reports emerged that he wanted to avoid taking action on the FBI's findings until after
the 2016 election.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership
seemed unwilling to move forward on the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)until late October -- about three weeks after first being
alerted to the issue , according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to
discuss the sensitive matter. A key question of the internal investigation is whether McCabe
or anyone else at the FBI wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after
the Nov. 8 election , these people said. It is unclear whether the inspector general has
reached any conclusions on that point. - WaPo
In January, Fox's Sean Hannity sat down with journalist Sara Carter - who shed light on the
McCabe situation, saying that FBI Director Christopher Wray was "
shocked to his core " after reading the GOP-authored "FISA" memo describing FBI malfeasance
surrounding the 2016 U.S. election:
Carter: What we know tonight is that FBI Director Christopher Wray went Sunday and
reviewed the four-page FISA memo. The very next day, Andrew McCabe was asked to resign.
Remember Sean, he was planning on resigning in March - that already came out in December.
This time they asked him to go right away. You're not coming into the office. I've heard
rep[orts he didn't even come in for the morning meeting - that he didn't show up.
Hannity: A source of mine told me tonight that when Wray read this, it shocked him to his
Sara Carter: Shocked him to his core, and not only that, the Inspector General's report -
I have been told tonight by a number of sources, there's indicators right now that McCabe may
have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302's - those are their interviews with
witnesses. So basically every time an FBI agent interviews a witness, they have to go back
and file a report.
Hannity: Changes? So that would be obstruction of justice?
Carter: Exactly . This is something the Inspector General is investigating. If this is
true and not alleged, McCabe will be fired. I heard they are considering firing him within
the next few days if this turns out to be true .
Meanwhile, several Republican Senators are asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to order a
special counsel to probe the FBI's conduct during its investigation into Russian meddling in
the 2016 presidential election - including the use of the "Steele dossier" in seeking a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.
The letter marks the second formal request by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The request comes amid controversy over Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's pension - which
is in jeopardy after the Department of Justice's internal watchdog found enough evidence of
malfeasance to recommend firing McCabe immediately.
The letter also notes that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who
they have the "utmost confidence" in, " does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to
gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are
not current DOJ employees ."
Senators Chuck Grassley Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and
John Cornyn (Texas), signed a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions as well as Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to name a special counsel who can "gather all the facts."
"We believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to
independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The
Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of
independence," wrote the senators.
See the letter below, and click on the tweet for more background on the ongoing
investigation from Nick Short of the Security Studies Group.
As Chuck Ross of the
Daily Caller points out, the letter also "broke a bit of news":
It reveals that Bruce Ohr, the former deputy assistant attorney general, was interviewed
12 separate times by the FBI in 2016 and 2017.
Ohr was in contact with Steele prior to the 2016 election. And shortly after the election,
Ohr was in contact with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS , the opposition research
firm that hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Ohr's wife, a Russia expert named Nellie Ohr, also happened to be working as a contractor
for Fusion GPS for its Trump investigation.
Senate Judiciary Republicans want to know whether the FBI and DOJ were aware of that
The committee letter lists all of Ohr's FBI interviews, which were summarized on what's
known as a FD-302 document. The first interview with Ohr was conducted on November, 22, 2016.
The most recent occurred on May 15, 2017. -
The DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced in January that it was opening a
probe of the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Meanwhile, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions asked the OIG to explore whether FBI officials abused their authority when they
used an unverified and salacious dossier from Fusion GPS to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter
That said, Sessions has resisted repeated calls for a second Special Counsel.
Graham and Grassley also asked the OIG to look into the FBI's conduct while handling the
Russia probe, writing in a February letter:
"We respectfully request that you conduct a comprehensive review of potential improper
political influence, misconduct, or mismanagement in the conduct of the counterintelligence and
criminal investigations related to Russia and individuals associated with (1) the Trump
campaign, (2) the Presidential transition, or (3) the administration prior to the appointment
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller."
The Senators also noted in their Thursday letter that if the DOJ declines to appoint a
second special counsel, they want " a detailed reply explaining why not. "
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his
own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War,
and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.
The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by
Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of
the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response
so far proves their culpability.
THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of
Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday,
it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It
must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko
and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such
expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.
JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes
that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken
through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the
necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under
Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack
to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence
as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5,
which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5,
but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US
Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor
You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now
tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions
that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?
STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man.
It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence,
and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's
put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and
it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly
is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some
ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say,
no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll
get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts
that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember
in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to
Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right
on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin,
unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic
attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get
this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very
quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.
AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before.
And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.
JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain
a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?
AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for
saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import
of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being
somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.
... ... ...
STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly.
Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have
great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's
holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia
related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search
for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.
And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader
of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior
on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.
AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now
of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you.
And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism
and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [
With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class
of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally
everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
Here's a thought: maybe the Soviet Union looked into the manufacture of these "novichoks" but decided that, nah, they don't work
all that well in practice e.g. mixing the binary components in the field isn't an exact science, so the end result can range from
Instant Death to Oh, Shit, Nobody Has Died And A Lot Of Innocents Are In Hospital.
Utterly unacceptable for any respectable KGB agent.
But some of the dudes who were working on those "novichoks" (dudes now out of work, remember) defected to the West with some
diagrams and some tall tales of how stupendously clever they are and how astonishingly lethal their wares.
So places like Porton Down test the chemistry in the laboratory and, sure enough, under lab conditions the chemistry is astonishingly
They don't test it in the field because, well, why would they?
Fast forward to this week, and Someone has the Bright Idea to use some "novichoks" in a false-flag operation.
Why not? Everyone tells them that they are astonishingly lethal, and the lab tests back that up. What could go wrong?
So they do, and they find out what the Soviets found out decades ago.
Which is that this stuff is utter shit under field conditions: your target's don't die an instant death and innocent people
who come to their aid get very, very sick.
Because that is the point that everyone in the MSM won't talk about: if this was supposed to be a hit then it was badly botched.
The nerve agent didn't kill, the assassins didn't *confirm* the kill, the radius of the effect wasn't contained, and other people
Hardly the hallmarks of an agency that DEVELOPED this nerve agent, is it. But maybe the hallmark of no-hopers who didn't really
understand what they were using.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced in the House of Commons that Russia was "highly likely" to have
been involved in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter. The incident left Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter
Yulia, 33, critically ill in hospital.
As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes
, The UK has now announced that it will expel 23 Russian diplomats after
Russia failed to explain how a military-grade nerve agent
was used in the attack in Salisbury.
Even though the Kremlin has vehemently denied any involvement, insiders have said that
all signs point to Moscow and if that's
true, it raises some troubling questions ahead of the country's presidential election on Sunday.
Some observers have suggested that rogue elements of the Russian government could be responsible for the attack while others are
pointing their fingers firmly towards Vladimir Putin.
Even though there is no evidence that Putin gave the order to carry out a high-profile killing in public, the decision to use
nerve agents that could be linked to Russia carries considerable risk. Some have claimed that Putin might have arranged the attack
to engineer a confrontation with the west in order to improve turnout at the polls.
If the UK goes a step beyond expelling diplomats and imposes sanctions, Russia could find itself more isolated and that has proven
deeply unpopular with the country's electorate .
If you don't have some appreciation of Putin's intellect and skill as a leader you're not paying attention. Additionally he's
shown real composure and self control given the provocations he has been subject to.
If he has indeed tossed out the Rothschild bankers he is a hero of the ages. That is no light work.
No country disapproves of America more than Russia, where 82% of survey respondents said they disapproved of U.S. leadership.
This was also the worst rating from Russia in the history of the survey. While many Russians do not like America, residents of
many other countries do not approve of Russia. The median disapproval rating of Russian leadership was greater than the median
approval rating, the only country to claim this distinction. And while a majority of residents in 15 countries disapprove of the
U.S., a majority of residents in 42 countries disapprove of Russia's leadership. Russia's disapproval rating of U.S. leadership
worsened considerably from 2013, increasing 12 percentage points. Recently implemented U.S.-led Western sanctions on Russia have
likely intensified Russians' disapproval. According to historical data from the Levada Center, Russia's independent public opinion
tracker, negative attitudes towards the United States spiked during the invasion of Iraq and worsened again in 2008 after the
Russia-Georgia conflict. More recently, the U.S. sided with Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
The West doesn't make Statesmen anymore. It produces whores and pedophiles who sell to the highest bidders and don't have the
capacity to think beyond their tenures.
Because Western governments are dominated by cucks and sellouts, they feel threatened by Putin's unwavering determination,
backbone and geopolitical mastery, hence the concerted propaganda campaign to discredit him, which by the way is pretty fucking
What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the
Canadians will happily sell us more.
The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that
we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows
how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media,
governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.
If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he
should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would
prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.
Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means.
Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary,
Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with
Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.
Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has
bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will
influence his position on many issues.
Can Donald Trump be taken down? Life in Donald's America gets more farcical every day. We
cannot dump the Donald despite our collective desire to. At this point most Americans would
welcome any replacement. We are caught in a dangerous storm and we would trust near any
neighbor to take us in. Even one as creepy as Mike Pence. Who will give us shelter from the
storm? Lately it appears to be an aptly named porn star, Stormy Daniels. Porn is also the apt
comparison for the Donald saga. Absurd, painful and relentlessly climatic. Meanwhile on CNN and
more surreptitious browsers, porn rumbles on.
Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon released a YouTube video detailing some of the abuse they have
taken at the hands of the porn industry. Just weeks ago we learned of Donald Trump's affair
with porn star Stormy Daniels. Stormy has become the liberal media's latest sweetheart, perhaps
second only to FBI man Bob Mueller. The real storms and droughts that are ravaging the natural
world take a back seat to all scandalous details. Stopping the dismantling of environmental
protections by Donald Trump could in theory make all frivolous investigations worth it. That is
assuming that Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and co. are any better. I'd say don't count on it. With a
smoother operator in town Democrats would be even more hapless in fighting for the environment.
The Republican Party's libertarian commitment to dismantling the protections of the state would
continue. The only sort of protection the rich want are protections from the people. This is
done through militarizing the cops in poor communities. It is also done through taking away
impediments to profit. Who needs safety regulations or environmental protections when they
impede on the profits of the rich?
The mainstream media has paid little attention to Trump's war on the environment and has
instead focused on abstract values, most namely a "liberal democracy." Too often democracy,
especially a liberal democracy, is equated with capitalism. Freedom is defined by the
individual's right to make a profit and to form an identity from this profit. This freedom is
gained at expense of the earth and the people of the Global South. Global trade deals that
abuse workers of poor countries and strip protections from the environment are seen as an
expression of the never been freer global market. The right to find one's passion and voice is
seen as the greatest freedom here in America. The people of other countries and the earth we
stand upon get no voice. For every new invention and new expansion comes new exploitation and
new destruction of the earth.
At the same time the value of democracy is being questioned by the elites because the poor
supposedly brought us Donald Trump. The rich want to correct the mistakes of the poor through
unelected bureaucrats like Bob Mueller. The rich fail to understand that in our society money
means representation. The rich get the policies and politicians they want and the poor do not.
The concerns about campaign finance reform and inequality brought up by the Bernie Sanders
campaign and Occupy Wall St. are swept under the rug.
The dismissal of Sanders, Occupy and the like are part of a broader dismissal of young
people. Millennials are cast off as lazy when they don't come out to vote for hopeless
Democrats or heartless Republicans. On the contrary, I see the lack of young people voting as a
sign of hope. We understand that our liberal capitalist democracy is not working, regardless of
who runs the show. How we create a new world is a much more difficult question. I see denial of
the old one as a fine first step.
The mainstream media is so out of touch with young people it has become a joke to even
engage with the high brow liberal outlets, even the ones who are potentially quite thoughtful.
Take this recent New Yorker article with an intriguing title: "Donald Trump and the Stress Test
of Liberal Democracy". The author David Remnick quotes Yascha Mounk: "Mounk, who teaches
government at Harvard, points out that one reason for the increasing indifference to democratic
rule and the rising enthusiasm for authoritarian alternatives, particularly among young people,
is the widening historical distance from any direct experience of the horrors of German Fascism
or Soviet Communism." Huh? It has been the old people who are mislabeling Trump a fascist and
Obama a communist. The young people see that both men are capitalists. It is the old people who
are questioning the value of democracy. They are right to call Trump undemocratic in his
actions. But they get really confused when they try to explain his success. How did he do it
without the endorsement of established undemocratic American institutions they ask. They
naturally just blame the dumb people who elected Trump rather than the capitalists who took
away their education, jobs, and economic security.
To the author's point though I think that young people are seeing the limits of a an unequal
liberal democracy. We have elections and free speech, which is awesome. But we have no time or
money or long term security. The politicians answer overwhelmingly to corporate interests. How
are we supposed to become politically involved?
The broader question we are asking is: how valuable is a society that liberates the
individual at the expense of the society? This is the ideology of neoliberalism. Basically all
actions are done with the word "liberal" in mine. Liberate the markets through stripping
protections for workers and the planet. Liberate the Other in a distant land through military
intervention. Liberate each person so they can make a profit off of people if they work hard
enough or play dirty enough.
My only criticism of the millennial generation is that we have chosen to interact through
self-focused and inherently isolating social media, internet, and entertainment platforms. It
is very easy to construct a world of one's own online. Making a world that works for all of us
must be done away from our phones, laptops and headphones.
The porn industry is seen as one of the ways our society is more liberated than ever before.
Like other industries of consumption the conditions of the workers are ignored. If a product is
cheap for the consumer it is seen as liberating. They say we have never had so many options to
buy and consume things, which is true. But what about the people who make these things? What
about the people who cannot get jobs because of this newfound efficiency? What about the
resources we take from the earth as we consume? To each their own, the liberal democracy
There was some justified horror about the death threats that porn star Mia Khalifa received
from ISIS. ISIS is a child of the liberating American Empire but their actions are always
blamed on the Muslim community. We are told that the East hates women and that the West loves
women. We are told that "our" women are sexually free while "their" women are sexually
oppressed. We are told that porn is a way for women to empower themselves. Like all
relationships under the free market, the relationship between women and men are assumed to be
"free and equal."
What then to make of this latest story from Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon? They were forced to
eat apples to induce vomit from the blow jobs they were to give. The blow job induced choking
and despite signals from the actors, the man in the scene would not let up. Raven says: "I got
in trouble and was beat vigorously with the largest, strongest hands you can imagine," "I
proceeded to get slapped in the face, I proceeded to be slapped on my ass, my thighs, my inner
thighs, and at this point I begin to cry and now I'm not just crying because I'm deep-throating
a dick." ."He recognized the fact that my legs were shaking and he found it funny and he made
me sit up higher, which made it hurt a lot more," "I was being penetrated extremely, extremely
deep" "I was squeezing his leg, his left thigh, I think, as hard as I could while pushing away
and wincing in pain and tears coming down my face, and he would smack my hand away, say some
sort of 'dumb white bitch' comment." ."I'm pretty sure, like, the first thing that happens in
the intro video with Rico is he comes in and just slaps me across the face really hard, like
really hard." ."I couldn't breathe, it went black, I saw stars, I was stunned. Near
Why didn't they leave? Because they needed to pay rent. They feared repercussions, perhaps
sexual ones, from their superiors. This is not so uncommon now for millennials, as sex for rent
is something demanded by landlords too. As internet hero Jimmy McMillan tells us: the rent is
just too damn high.
What the rich do not realize is that to survive under capitalism one must do whatever it
takes to pay the bills. Incarcerating drug dealers who have no other way to make a living is
one prevalent example of the punishing of the poor in an unequal society. Ultimately these
stories are a result of the failure of the state to provide the basic needs for the individual.
Now is the time for a Universal Basic Income. No one should have to live like this to
Stormy Daniels is the latest beacon of hope for the liberals looking to take down Trump.
Let's hope she succeeds. But just as Bob Mueller was paraded through the headlines everyday
without a mention of the evils of the FBI, Stormy is brought up everyday without a mention of
the cruelty of the porn industry. There is no mention of the negative implications of watching
porn either. One would think there could be some links drawn between porn and the violence
against women exposed through the #MeToo movement. Although as I have noted before, domestic
violence remains an untouchable subject for the media. The toxic nature of porn has been
well-documented by many feminists, most notably, Andrea Dworkin. Porn tells us that it is a
freedom to be cruel to other people. Could anything better fit the mentality of Donald
Don't look for the defenders of a free market democracy to help us either. As nice as it may
sound as a principle, the implications of such a self-centered society have been deadly. There
are few left in the mainstream who question the ultimate freedom that capitalism brings to us.
Stormy Daniels, Russia, or any other scandal may ultimately give us shelter from the storm of
Donald Trump. The rent for this shelter unfortunately still depends on the benevolence of those
with the freedom to exploit us under capitalism. Regardless of whether we survive Hurricane
Donald, liberal democracy has a leaky roof. It will be up to those of us interested in a
collective society to build something more durable.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... Zero Dark Thirty ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to
Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive
BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and
co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.
Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to
getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison,
to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working
telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset
who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to
disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents.
Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going
back more than 10 years."
To this day, Sater continues to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department, he said in
his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. He wouldn't disclose additional details,
except to say that he works on "international matters." Two US officials confirmed Sater
continues to be a reliable asset.
As for his regular life, when he relocated back to the US in 2010, he recalled, "Donald
said, 'Where have you been?'" Sater said Trump asked him to join the Trump Organization.
"That's when I became senior advisor to him," he said. The Trump Organization and the White
House declined to comment. - BuzzFeed
In effect, Sater - at least according to BuzzFeed , is more or less a rockstar opportunist
spy with a shady past, who redeemed himself as an asset for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the FBI. During the course of his work for the agencies, all unpaid, BuzzFeed
confirmed the following exploits:
He obtained five of the personal satellite telephone numbers for Osama bin Laden before
9/11 and he helped flip the personal secretary to Mullah Omar, then the head of the Taliban
and an ally of bin Laden, into a source who provided the location of al-Qaeda training camps
and weapons caches.
In 2004, he persuaded a source in Russia's foreign military intelligence to hand over the
name and photographs of a North Korean military operative who was purchasing equipment to
build the country's nuclear arsenal.
Sater provided US intelligence with details about possible assassination threats against
former president George W. Bush and secretary of state Colin Powell. Sater reported that
jihadists were hiding in a hut outside Bagram Air Base and planned to shoot down Powell's
plane during a January 2002 visit. He later told his handlers that two female al-Qaeda
members were trying to recruit an Afghan woman working in the Senate barbershop to poison
President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
He went undercover in Cyprus and Istanbul to catch Russian and Ukrainian cybercriminals
around 2005. After the FBI set him up with a fake name and background, Sater posed as a money
launderer to help nab the suspects for washing funds stolen from US financial institutions
The US State Department is spending millions of dollars spreading its own disinformation and
propping up NGOs to destroy any individual or organization that does not toe the official US
government line on the US global military empire. Through its "Global Engagement Center" the
State Department establishes in fact -- in the open -- what it accuses the Russian government
of doing without any evidence. Social media companies are colluding with the US government to
make organizations who oppose the US global military empire disappear.
RPI's Daniel McAdams joins the
Corbett Report to discuss the neocon/Washington war on dissent in America:
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"... The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime. ..."
AM UNDER ATTACK In the 40 years that I have spent in American Politics, I have never seen a
more hysterical lynch mob than the one at MSNBC , and other "Trump Hating" fake news
sites. If you read the Washington Post, Salon or Vice , they would have you
believe that I am on the verge of being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for
obtaining copies of the allegedly hacked DNC emails acquired and published by Julian Assange,
and passing them to Donald Trump and his campaign.
The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher
of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that
obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime.
There is only one little problem with this conspiracy theory. I never received anything from
Wikileaks, or the Russians, or anyone else. I never sent Donald Trump anything. In fact, I
never discussed the Wikileaks disclosures or allegedly hacked DNC emails with Donald Trump
before during or after the election.
I testified for four hours before the House Intelligence Committee months ago, debunking
this left-wing conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, although members of the Committee disparaged
me in public session, I was only allowed to respond behind closed doors. Suggestions by the
grumbling Democratic minority and amplified by Politico that my testimony was less than
honest are completely and categorically false.
Last week someone on the staff of the House of Intelligence Committee leaked a carefully
doctored and truncated screenshot of the direct message exchange I had with WikiLeaks. This
material was long ago supplied to the House Intelligence Committee and even in its heavily
edited form, proves yet again that I had no coordination or collaboration with WikiLeaks.
"... In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities. ..."
"... The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog" scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and military-industrial commercial interests. ..."
"... Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent, because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge ..."
"... When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed: "There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people." ..."
"... they simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to distract them. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned ..."
"... The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presi