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.
"... I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. ..."
"... It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he? ..."
"... CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?! ..."
It's both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are
referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President
Volodymyr Zelensky as a "whistleblower."
It's pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou,
Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They
risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within
the national-security state agencies they were working for.
That's not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He
didn't blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices,
such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of
Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture
videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc
If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the
national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers.
In fact, that's how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That's obviously not
happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this "whistleblower" as
being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the
That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a
spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy
agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble,
he's also obviously a snitch.
A "gotcha" moment
In fact, the entire episode has a "gotcha" feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans
have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and
editorials about what Trump rightly called the "collusion delusion" theory. Democrats, the
mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert
Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian
officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They
had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.
And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was
the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream
press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.
All they needed and wanted was an opportunity -- any opportunity -- to apply their
impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them
that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a "gotcha!" and proceeded to snitch on
Trump with his "whistleblower" complaint.
Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that
telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign
aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion
allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies
would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against
The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on
the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do
whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers
as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and
imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel
omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with
the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.
That's what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the "gotcha" episode for which they were
clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.
enmity toward Trump
Despite his campaign rhetoric against "endless wars," Trump has kept U.S. troops in
Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive
destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon's and CIA's assassination
program. He has also continued the Pentagon's and CIA's indefinite detention and torture center
at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes.
The fact is that Trump's term in office, despite his "America First" rhetoric, has proven to be
nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.
That's what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high
crimes don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
But it's also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority
of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C.,
political elites have. Trump's failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment
made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and
the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new
Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even
before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and
honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the
national-security establishment, stated, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence
community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens,
so long it is necessary to protect "national security."
Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the
mainstream press. The CIA's Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.
And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially
through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries "conspiracy
theory," recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about
the threat that the "military-industrial complex" poses to the liberties and democratic
processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term
"military-industrial-congressional complex" but changed his mind at the last minute. He was
referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the
Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to
be a "conspiracy theorist," the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the
Kennedy assassination too closely.
Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he
intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA's long-secret records relating to
the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA's request for
Why did Trump do that?
One possibility is that he became convinced that "national security" would be jeopardized if
the American people were to see the CIA's long-secret JFK assassination records.
Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.
A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in
the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one
of the most naïve presidents in history.
Maybe Trump was naive not to realize how much the entrenched elites were against him
and what he represented.
And maybe the entrenched elites don't realize how deeply so many of us deplorables hate
them . Let's see how D.C. -- the Senate and the Supreme Court -- defuse the coming Civil
War. Because the House and the Executive have already staked out their positions ... AND SO
CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production
made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies
echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so
gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?!
Here is as awkward question: why are we not allowed to simply ask what is truly ailing us
and why in many countries the mere doubt or questioning will lend one in prison. What kinds
of "truths" demand prison time for simply asking questions?!
We've lost WWII. Western societies are no longer exceptional, if they were so to begin
with (the traitors made sure of that). We must reform and address the one true problem at our
midst: Jewish tyranny!
A man, unlike ANY politician since dared to put the interests of his people ahead of
anything else. Whether you agree or disagree, have an open mind to revisit this case; perhaps
you will now see what you missed previously.
Left and Right is nothing but Reality TV for the masses. They are two sides of a coin, in
the end its still one coin!
They are funded on both sides from the same people, one side is funded openly the other is
through NGOs to hide the "investment" donation.
To believe they are truly after Trump is BS, the "left" wants in, by getting him "out" but
the people funding it all are just using the "left" as muscle to keep Trump "inline" doing
their bidding! If it was a Democrat they couldn't keep inline they would do the same thing,
in the end its all just another way to keep society divided so they can further control us
and strip away more freedom,power and money/assets and we agree to give it away when asked
under the BS lie of protecting us from some made up enemy/threat, and we fall for it every
time like a mouse to glue paper!
If Snowden and Assange showing us how bad we have been betrayed didn't wake us up to
rebel, nothing will!
It would be a whole different story if the info they released was being debated for truth,
but they have been openly confirmed on everything they released and we still go along with
this DeepState monster that has basically imprisoned us all, some with bars/cells some
without but all imprisoned and lacking Free will/freedom we as a nation are suppose to
The fact that we still surrender more and more of this freedom daily without any outcry
from the population is mindboggling. How bad does it have to get to get some fight out of the
populas? It is even more worrying that there is no MSM that will independently report what we
know as fact so we can unite.
Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only
Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to
advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in
reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called
Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say
until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure
but with different players.
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the
new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated
that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong
anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a
window of opportunity to do just that.
Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They
serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and
accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more
valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a
European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe --
creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and
profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable
to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a
country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.
But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been
fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as
political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become:
the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the
system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where
rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to
the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question
once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters
overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority.
The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of
the issues I expect we will be discussing today.
... ... ...
I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in
Here are just a few:
the release of the so-called "Black Ledger" and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resignation
from the Trump campaign;
the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the
investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ; and
the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin .
Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:
President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskiy;
All of the discussions surrounding that phone call; and
Any discussions surrounding the reported delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
During my Tenure in Ukraine
As for events during my tenure in Ukraine, I want to categorically state that I have
never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any
other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to
refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or
disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false -- a story that Mr. Lutsenko,
himself, has since retracted.
Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard
the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's
orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such
a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.
Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the
Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations
with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course
of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or
indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total
of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's
motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.
Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
This is coup d'état, no question about it. What is the level of connection of Adam
Schiff and the CIA?
"... Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes? ..."
"... Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references? ..."
"... What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate? ..."
1. Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and
President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that
lasted just a few minutes?
2. Why did the "whistleblower" wait 18 days to file the complaint after describing the call
as "frightening" in their memo?
3. Why and when did the "whistleblower" communicate with Rep Adam Schiff's staff before
filing the complaint?
4. Why did the "whistleblower" hide from the ICIG that they met with Rep Adam Schiff's staff
by not checking the box on the whistleblower form indicating they had spoken to Congress?
5. Why didn't Rep Adam Schiff tell us his staff had met with the "whistleblower?"
6. Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead
of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references?
7. Why is Rep Adam Schiff holding hearings, depositions, and interviews behind closed
8. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews, instead of leaking
cherry-picked information that fits his narrative?
9. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff take questions from the press after these interviews, like
Republicans have done?
10. Why does Speaker Pelosi think we need to “strike while the iron is hot,”
instead of taking time for serious and thorough investigative fact-finding?
11. Why is Speaker Pelosi scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry like
it’s been done every other time?
12. Why do Democrats keep making up the rules as they go along, instead of following a fair
13. What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential
14. Why do Democrats and the media keep falsely claiming President Trump pressured Ukraine?
President Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wasn't pushed.
15. Why don't Democrats trust the American people to choose the President? The election is
less than 13 months away.
16. Why won't Democrats focus on helping the country, instead of attacking the President
with this unfair and partisan process?
17. Why won't the media ask these questions to Rep Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi?
Dems not troubled by truth. Their mind control media believes in itself as the new God
that the morons bow down to and will abandon their children for. Their brainwashed radical
left will trample their own mothers to get into a fight to the death for their demonic cause
of grabbing power for the furtherance of their selfish sponsors.
This is the train of darkness that unwittingly delivered the first people POTUS reaction.
The train drivers are very powerful and are long established as the puppet masters. They are
scheming 24/7 on multiple fronts to distract their enemy called democracy and further embed
themselves within every internal organ and nerve fiber. But they are not immutable.
The capture of democracy is a goal that they must achieve. The attack is obviously
coordinated and multi-faceted. The tool of brainwashing will target the children, like the
Nazi program called "Hitler Youth" but with a neolibic dogma.
One man stands alone against the deep state and its swamp and media and mind control and
infiltration. Can he trust anyone to watch his back?
to most on this thread democrats want to take all they can via taxes, then borrow what
they can't raise in taxes, democrats will cause widespread poverty, sickness and will sponsor
**** educational standards, encourage perversion and pay minorities taxpayer dollars to buy
their votes - even though minorities are no more special than any social grouping (other than
the perverts in the lbGTQ++ community who are special in a mentally retarded way) democrats
sponsor criminal behavior by refusing to punish it and so on and so forth,
trump at least promotes reward for effort, by giving back some taxes to individuals and
makes American corporate tax rates consistent with global corporate tax rates, has shitcanned
the stealth taxes on healthy people via Obamacare, and inspires people left behind by the
constant march to socialism that the US has endured for the last fifty years (via welfare
benefits, scholastic indoctrination, social housing programs, medicare/medicaid programs that
taxpayers could have got for half the price they paid - and half the debt liabilities run up
in trust funds.
so..has trump got the federal government completely out of peoples lives? no, but he at
least wants taxes on the country to 18% of GDP and not the 40% targeted by the howler monkeys
on the left.
it is not a choice of two equal evils. it is the choice between YOU paying 18% of your
income or 40%.
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
"... New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate. ..."
"... Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to support a write-in candidate instead. ..."
"... In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet. ..."
US cyber-security experts have blamed Russia for meddling in American elections since 2016.
Now it has emerged that authors of a Senate report on 'Russian' meddling actually ran a "false
flag" meddling operation themselves. A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee
released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting
African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household
Described by the New
York Times as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has
ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies. Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan
previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agency. His partner, Ryan Fox,
is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for
the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract
the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company in 2018 alone. Morgan and Fox
have struck gold in the "Russiagate" racket, which sprung into being after Hillary
Clinton blamed Moscow for Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. Morgan, for example, is
one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, the online tool that purports to monitor
and expose narratives being pushed by the Kremlin on Twitter. The dashboard is bankrolled by
the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – a collection of Democrats
and neoconservatives funded in part by NATO and USAID.
It is worth noting that the 600 "Russia-linked" Twitter accounts monitored by the
dashboard are not disclosed to the public, making it impossible to verify its claims. This
inconvenience has not stopped Hamilton 68 from becoming a go-to source for hysteria-hungry
From the way it was formed to the secrecy of its "methods" to the blatantly false
assumptions on which its claims rest, "Hamilton68" is probably the single most successful
media fraud & US propaganda campaign I've seen since I've been writing about politics.
It's truly shocking.
New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times
story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017
special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake
Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several
Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to
support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false
flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by
a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by
Mother Jones , which based its story on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious
creation, Hamilton 68.
Ultimately, Moore ended up losing the race by a miniscule 1.5 percentage points –
making his opponent Doug Jones the first Democrat to represent Alabama in the US Senate in over
Money trail and weak apologies
Things got even weirder when it turned out that Scott Shane, the author of the Times piece,
had known about the meddling for months, because he spoke at an event where the organizers
boasted about it!
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement
Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar.
Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to suppress Republican
votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hurt
Moore. He dubbed it "Project Birmingham."
This gets even weirder: NYT reporter @ScottShaneNYT , who broke the
Alabama disinfo op story, learned of it in early September when he spoke at an off-the-record
event organized by one of the firms that perpetrated the deception https://t.co/gIAytOh2yy
The money for the venture came from a $750,000 contribution to AET by Reid Hoffman, the
billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a big Democrat donor. Once that emerged, Hoffman offered
a public apology for his connection to the shady operation, but insisted that he didn't know
what his money was going towards.
" I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing ," Hoffman
said in a statement.
"For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET -- the organization I did
support -- more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would
As for Shane, he told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, but had
signed a nondisclosure agreement at the request of AET, so he could not talk about it
Spin and denial
Shane's spin on the tale was that New Knowledge "imitated Russian tactics" as part of
an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 and had no effect on the
election. Yet these tactics are only considered "Russian" because New Knowledge and
similar outfits said so! Moreover, New Knowledge's budget in Alabama was greater than the
reported amount spent by "Russians" on the 2016 US presidential election, yet Moscow's
alleged meddling was supposed to be decisive, while New Knowledge's failed?
New Knowledge responded to the Times story by insisting that the "false flag"
operation was actually a benign research project. In a statement posted on Twitter, the
company's CEO claimed that its activities during the Alabama Senate race were conducted in
order to "better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media
Morgan emphasized that he in no way took part in an influence campaign, and warned people
not to mischaracterize his "research."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that
Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard to give his "false flag" more credibility
– misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which announced last
week that five accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been
suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
The final nail in the coffin of Morgan's story came on Thursday, when the leaked secret
after-action report from "Project Birmingham" was published online, showing that those
behind the Alabama campaign knew perfectly well what they were doing and why.
BREAKING: Here's the after-action report from the AL Senate disinfo campaign.
So, it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy by "Russian bots."
Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat
operatives chiefly responsible for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria
over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
There is a
reason for that. By the committee's own admission,
"much of this Volume's analysis is derived
the work of two Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), which produced two public reports back in
December 2018, to the same kind of fawning press coverage the report is receiving now.
NEW: The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S.
elections involved using social media content to mostly target African-Americans, a new
Senate committee report concludes.
Not surprisingly, the report's
are being cited as conclusive proof that
Democrats were right and President Donald Trump was wrong about 2016, Russia, Ukraine and the US
The Senate Intelligence Committee unveiled a sweeping new bipartisan
report showing Russian efforts to boost Trump's White House bid on social media during the
2016 U.S. election
The only trouble with that is that the committee provides no actual evidence for any of its claims
– only assertions. For example, their description of the Internet Research Agency – the
– is basically copied over from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of a
dozen of its alleged members. Yet a federal judge presiding over the case ruled back in May that
allegations cannot be treated as established evidence or conclusion, coming close to finding Mueller's
prosecutors in contempt.
Another document presented as evidence is the January 2017
"Intelligence Community Assessment,"
the disingenuously named work of a small group of people, hand-picked by the Obama administration's
DNI and chiefs of the CIA, FBI and NSA – all of whom, except for the NSA, have since been implicated
in what seems to be a campaign to spy on Trump, delegitimize his presidency, and have him impeached.
The Senate report also quotes testimonies from Obama aides such as Ben Rhodes – helpfully redacted
of course – Gen. Philip Breedlove, the NATO commander who tried to set off a war with Russia;
hunters like Clint Watts and Thomas Rid; and NATO's
Communications Center of Excellence."
The best part, however, has to be the reliance on New Knowledge, presented as
company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks."
In reality, New
Knowledge was exposed by the New York Times as the outfit that actually ran bots and disinformation
operations during the 2017 Alabama special election for the US Senate, targeting Republican candidate
Roy Moore on behalf of Democrats – while blaming Russia!
In an internal memo, New Knowledge executives boasted how they
"orchestrated an elaborate 'false
flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a
The other TAG, led by British academics and researchers, found that the
activity of 'Russian trolls' increased after the election – by 238 percent on Instagram, 59 percent on
Facebook, 52 percent on Twitter, and 84 percent on YouTube. So it was influencing elections
Left unsaid was that the absolute quantity of
posts was minuscule, a proverbial
drop in the bucket compared to the billions of social media posts generated and consumed by the US
electorate during the campaign.
These are the people who
"significantly informed the Committee's understanding of Russia's
social media-predicated attack against our democracy,"
as this week's report puts it.
Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed
for the revelations of corruption
within the DNC in July 2016, the Washington establishment has been eager to blame Moscow for all the
ills of the US political system, real or imagined. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report seems to
be nothing more than an attempt to reheat the long-cold corpse of a conspiracy that should have been
buried with the Mueller Report and allowed to rest in peace.
Sondland's admonishment of Taylor –
"I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's
intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
– is somehow being
held up as an admission of wrongdoing, along with his request for a phone call instead of continued
Just like that, all of a sudden, the controversy about the so-called
may have colluded with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) before filing his
complaint – based on hearsay – is declared
and the texts are held up as the Holy
Grail of impeachment proceedings.
At this point, whistleblower complaint is irrelevant. Transcript of
Trump-Zelensky call and texts from Volker, Sondland et al released yesterday is all one needs to
show clearly Trump misconduct .
It's curious how the same treatment was not given a few months ago to the anti-Trump text messages
of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when the entire media establishment twisted itself into
pretzels to explain that when Strzok said
Trump from becoming president what he
really meant, you see, was something totally innocuous and not sinister at all
House Republicans have blasted the diplomatic texts as "cherry-picked" by the other party, and
argued that the closed-doors testimony of Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine who
participated in the exchanges, painted a completely different picture.
We noticed the original tweet was deleted after we posted our fact check.
of Volker's opening statement, obtained and published Friday by investigative reporter
John Solomon and the Federalist, seems to back that claim. Volker testified he did not bring up the issue
of a hold on military aid with the Ukrainians until late August, when it was first reported in the media
– and long after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Nor was he made aware of any reference to former VP Joe
Biden or his son until the transcript of the call was released on September 25.
On the issue of holding up military aid, Volker admits he was conducting his own policy, in line with
the consensus in Washington, rather than obeying the president who appointed him:
"I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on
July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position I was confident that this
position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly
supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in
Yet the most overlooked text in the batch is from Volker to Giuliani, dated August 9, asking for a
phone call "to make sure I advise Z [Zelensky] correctly as to what he should be saying."
To the impeachment-bent Democrats, what's objectionable here is the substance of Volker's instruction
– namely, the alleged
in investigating the Bidens (and Ukraine's role in
2016, which they are eager never to mention). What should be objectionable is the fact that a US diplomat
is stage-whispering to the freshly elected president of an ostensibly sovereign country. Not that it
would be the first time.
Way back in
, President Barack Obama argued that the US stood for the
"principle that nations like
Ukraine have the right to choose their own destiny."
Left unsaid was that such choices would only be
honored if they aligned with US beliefs and objectives – and subject to
regime change if not, which is just what happened in February 2014 in Kiev.
The fact that neither Democrats and Republicans are raising that issue with Volker's testimony and the
texts just goes to show that neither have a problem with the US acting like an empire, and Ukraine being
its vassal. That is what is truly damning about all of this, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
President Donald Trump has continued to hammer Democratic efforts to impeach him, this time
accusing the party of "continuing to interfere in the 2016 election" as well. "Not only are
the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere
in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "They must be stopped!"
Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are
continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election. They must be stopped!
The president has called the impeachment investigation against him – which centers
around allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter's business dealings in the country –
"fake" and a "phony witch hunt," designed to oust him before the 2020 race.
Rather than suggesting that Democrats were traveling through time to meddle in the 2016
election all over again, the second half of the president's tweet refers to his belief that the
impeachment drive was concocted to distract from Attorney General William Barr's efforts to
investigate the origins of the counterintelligence probe against his campaign.
Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and
obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses. Barr's office received a draft
report of this alleged FISA abuse from the Justice Department's Inspector General two weeks
Several top Democrats have released text messages between US officials which they claim
expose the Trump administration's drive to 'coerce' the Ukrainian government to target Joe
Biden, for purely political reasons obviously. The Democratic chairs of the House Intelligence,
Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released the messages in a letter to fellow
representatives late Thursday.
letter features over a dozen text messages between US diplomats – including former
Trump administration envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ukrainian embassy official Bill Taylor, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, as well as the president's personal attorney Rudy
"The president and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and
misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of soliciting foreign power to interfere in our
elections," the chairmen wrote.
Even more astonishing, he is now openly and publicly asking another foreign power
– China – to launch its own sham investigation against the Bidens to further his
own political aims.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would launch an impeachment inquiry over
the allegations the president sought to "shake down" his Ukrainian counterpart, unifying
six separate committee probes under one umbrella.
President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing amid the controversy, arguing that
there is nothing illicit about requesting an ally to investigate potential corruption. He has
stressed that Biden himself publicly bragged about threatening to withhold US loan
guarantees to Ukraine unless the country fired its head prosecutor, who happened to be
investigating the gas firm that hired Biden's son, Hunter.
A showdown between the White House and Democrats is in full swing with the former penning a
letter declaring it would not cooperate with an "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional"
impeachment inquiry conducted in secret. The
letter , published on Tuesday evening, condemned the impeachment initiative in the harshest
terms yet, arguing it deprived President Trump of "constitutionally mandated due
process," and that the inquiry lacked legal legitimacy, as it was never authorized by a
Congressional Democrats have flouted the Constitution and all past bipartisan precedent
under the guise of an "impeachment inquiry."
You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses,
to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and
many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.
"You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the
separation of powers," the letter continued "All of this violates the Constitution, the
rule of law, and every past precedent ." [emphasis in original]
The White House accused Democrats of using impeachment as a tool to not only "undo the
democratic results" of the previous election, but to "influence" the upcoming
contest as well, citing the words of Congressman Al Green (D-Texas), who in May expressed
concerns that "if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected."
The letter also notes that ranking Republican committee members had not been granted the
same subpoena powers as the Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment process – as they
were during previous inquiries – slamming the process as unfair and
Earlier on Monday, the Democratic committee chairs issued a subpoena to compel the testimony
of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the inquiry, after the White House signaled
that it would block his appearance before Congress. The Trump administration appears to be
doubling down on that move, arguing in the letter that it will simply not comply with future
Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of
fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be
expected to participate in it.
Going along with the inquiry under its "current unconstitutional posture" would
"inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the
separation of powers," the letter said, adding that Democrats have "left the president
no choice" but to refuse to cooperate.
The missive is the White House's latest response to intensifying impeachment efforts
spearheaded by House Democrats, who launched the proceedings late last month accusing Trump of
pressuring the President of Ukraine to probe into the activities of former Vice President Joe
Biden and his son in the country.
Several Democratic opponents shot back at the document, some denouncing the move as an act
"The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our
democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi in a statement on Tuesday, adding the president had "normalize[d]
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
A CIA employee who lodged a whistleblower complaint over President Trump's request that Ukraine
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden
has a "professional relationship with one of
the 2020 candidates,"
according to the
Byron York - citing a source familiar with last Friday's impeachment inquiry
interview with Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
Now we know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) won't release the
The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship
with one of the Democratic candidates
," said York's source.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered
Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate," said a
person with knowledge of the testimony.
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the
whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship
between the two was.
In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on
the whistleblower's part, "
such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the
whistleblower acted out of bias
. Indeed, the transcript of
July 25 call
with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to
see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower's purported bias. -
In short, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll went to Adam Schiff's committee, who referred
him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint on a form
was altered to allow second-hand information
Former State Department official Peter Van Buren told
on Monday that
the second 'whistleblower' is simply the the source for the
original 'second-hand' complaint.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
Called the House Rules Committee office this morning. In order for House Rules to change
after they pass at the start of the session – in this case January 2019 –
there would have to be a vote taken. In looking at the House Resolution ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6/all-actions
) all actions occurred in Jan. this year so no vote to amend has been taken. That doesn't
mean that Nan won't use this wonk's paper to bolster her position OR that a particular
committee didn't change their rules. But according to the person I spoke with, the standing
House Rules can not be changed without a vote.
The gentleman also said that Congressional Research Service papers are just that –
interpretations/research on a particular subject that do not hold any legislative weight.
They are requested anonymously so there probably isn't a way to trace who
requested this particular paper or how it ended up being authored by Rybicki (one of seven
she's written this year). Additional little tidbit is that the papers can be requested by
members of Congress or their staff members.
While trying to figure it out on my own found this chilling little factoid from the Rules
Committee page re: bills considered under a "special rules" scenerio ( https://rules.house.gov/about archived here:
"The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration
of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed
amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so
long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that
the Rules Committee cannot do. " (emphasis mine)
That makes the House Rules Committee more powerful that the full house voting on "special
rules" bills. Well doesn't that just sound .wrong.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no
return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good.
To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The
New York Times,
would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended.
"... It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle. ..."
As the phony
targeting President Donald Trump rumbles on, there really is no definitive list of questions that
as yet remain unanswered. Were anyone to compile such a list, it would probably start with five
questions that strike at the heart of the entire affair.
These questions clarify whether the current process is being conducted correctly or is
colored by partisan hostility
– and, indeed, whether the Russian "collusion" investigation
was similarly tainted.
1. Ukraine-DNC Connection?
It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert
Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out
to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates
Considering that both of
those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to
influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can
only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle.
2. Anonymous Witnesses?
The so-called whistleblower who came forward with a complaint about the nature of the
president's phone conversation with the new Ukrainian president is hardly a credible witness
since he or she had no firsthand knowledge of the call. Democrats are already making elaborate
but secretive plans to extract testimony from this individual. Can his or her identity be kept
from the public – and from the president – indefinitely?
The president's opponents cannot possibly believe that they can impeach Trump using
secondhand allegations provided by an anonymous source. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed
that, if Democrats refuse to identify this "whistleblower," then he will ensure that any Senate
impeachment trial will do so. Further, it would be necessary for the identities of White House
sources from whom the whistleblower claims to have obtained information to be exposed.
Regardless of laws and rules designed to protect whistleblowers, any formal impeachment
cannot be based upon testimony from unknown persons. Given that Democrats, since day one of the
Trump presidency, have made no secret of their desire to impeach the president, the entire
credibility of such an effort would stand or fall on complete transparency. The American public
and the president himself deserve nothing less than to know the identities of the accusers and
the sources from which they drew their information.
3. Another Whistleblower?
At least one additional whistleblower has now come forward, according to reports, but does
this fact change anything? Indeed, the outrage over the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky appears even more fabricated the more that anonymous individuals
come forward with complaints. Already, it is highly suspicious that almost three weeks passed
between the phone call itself and the filing of a
what was said. Additional complaints filed even later hardly bolster the credibility of the case
4. Schiff's Role?
How has Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) role in this latest assault upon the president compromised
the entire process? Schiff has been less than forthcoming about his knowledge of events or the
extent to which his own staffers worked with the whistleblower even before any complaint was
filed with the intelligence community's inspector general.
As if the congressman were not already looking foolish and dishonest, his performance at a
recent hearing was reason enough for Schiff to be compelled to recuse himself. During the event,
he read out his own version of what Trump said to Zelensky – which bore no resemblance to the
now-public transcript. The very idea that Schiff has either the capability or the desire to
conduct a fair and objective investigation is utterly laughable.
5. Window Of Opportunity?
Finally, how big is the window of opportunity for congressional Democrats to impeach the
president? They may have so far avoided making the process official, but articles of impeachment
must, at some point, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.
Once the opposition party chooses its presidential nominee, the campaign for the White House
begins in earnest, and impeaching Trump during an election campaign is going to be seen as
purely an attempt to influence the 2020 election – even by those Americans who do not already
see it as such.
Democrats, therefore, have around eight months to conclude their investigations, draw up
articles of impeachment, and bring them up for debate and a vote. The holiday season will take a
bite out of that time, so the clock is ticking. The chances of impeachment going before the
Senate before the 2020 Democratic National Convention are slim to none.
These five basic questions, when answered objectively,
determine whether there is any
realistic chance of Trump's enemies removing him from office before the next election
for Democrats, a
The public isn't buying any of this because people are
desensitized after hearing for 3 years that Trump will be gone in
days, the walls are closing in, etc. 3 years of that **** and it
was all nonsense. Remember how every Friday was going to be the
day that Mueller dropped the dime on Trump? You can't do that for
years and expect people to have any ***** left to give. That
shipped has sailed.
Both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have said the impeachment
tactic a a major mistake. Chomsky says the Dems have not discussed
jobs, economy, etc even once. They have only satisfied their own
shallow egos by screaming "RussiaGate" "Impeachment" etc.
according to Chomsky.
This latest impeachment effort is as phony as all get out. It is
for show to the Democratic base and it is guaranteed to fail. As
long as Trump is handling the Epstein investigations. Heat from
democrats is going to be completely manageable.
'We Absolutely Could Not Do That': When Seeking Foreign
Help Was Out of the Question https://nyti.ms/30Lkzni
NYT - Peter Baker - October 6
WASHINGTON -- One day in October 1992, four Republican congressmen showed up in the Oval
Office with an audacious recommendation. President George Bush was losing his re-election
race, and they told him the only way to win was to hammer his challenger Bill Clinton's
patriotism for protesting the Vietnam War while in London and visiting Moscow as a young
Mr. Bush was largely on board with that approach. But what came next crossed the line, as
far as he and his team were concerned. "They wanted us to contact the Russians or the British
to seek information on Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow," James A. Baker III, Mr. Bush's White
House chief of staff, wrote in a memo (*) later that day. "I said we absolutely could not do
President Trump insists he and his attorney general did nothing wrong by seeking damaging
information about his domestic opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and Britain or by
publicly calling on China to investigate his most prominent Democratic challenger. But for
every other White House in the modern era, Republican and Democratic, the idea of enlisting
help from foreign powers for political advantage was seen as unwise and politically
dangerous, if not unprincipled.
A survey of 10 former White House chiefs of staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush,
Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under
which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all
said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.
"I served three presidents in the White House and don't remember even hearing any
speculation to consider asking for such action," said Andrew H. Card Jr., who ran the younger
Mr. Bush's White House and was the longest-serving chief of staff in the last six
William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary under Mr. Clinton and chief of staff
under Mr. Obama, said if someone had even proposed such an action, he probably would
"recommend the person be escorted out of" the White House, then fired and reported to ethics
Other chiefs were just as definitive. "Did not happen on Reagan's watch. Would not have
happened on Reagan's watch," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, his last chief of staff. "I would
have shut him down," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as Mr. Clinton's chief of staff and Mr.
Obama's defense secretary.
The sense of incredulity among White House veterans in recent days crossed party and
ideological lines. "This is unprecedented," said Samuel K. Skinner, who preceded Mr. Baker as
chief of staff under Mr. Bush. Other chiefs who said they never encountered such a situation
included Thomas F. McLarty III and John D. Podesta (Clinton) and Rahm Emanuel, Denis R.
McDonough and Jacob J. Lew (Obama).
History has shown that foreign affairs can be treacherous for presidents, even just the
suspicion of mixing politics with the national interest. As a candidate in 1968, Richard M.
Nixon sought to forestall a Vietnam peace deal by President Lyndon B. Johnson just before the
Associates of Mr. Reagan were accused of trying to delay the release of hostages by Iran
when he was a candidate in 1980 for fear that it would aid President Jimmy Carter, but a
bipartisan House investigation concluded that there was no merit to the charge. Mr. Clinton
faced months of investigation over 1996 campaign contributions from Chinese interests tied to
the Beijing government.
In none of those cases did an incumbent president personally apply pressure to foreign
powers to damage political opponents. Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president this summer to
investigate involvement with Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
while holding up $391 million in American aid. Mr. Trump has said he was simply investigating
corruption, not trying to benefit himself.
"The right way to look at it is the vice president was selling our country out," Rudolph
W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Trump was
fulfilling his duty, he said. "I don't see what the president did wrong."
Mr. Giuliani has been leading Mr. Trump's efforts to dig up evidence of corruption by the
Democrats in Ukraine, meeting with various officials and negotiating a commitment by the
newly installed government in Kiev to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election and supposed conflicts of interest by Mr. Biden.
Told that past White House chiefs of staff said any legitimate allegations should be
handled by the Justice Department, not the president, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's if you can
trust the Justice Department. My witnesses don't trust the Justice Department, and they don't
trust the F.B.I." He added that he would not have either until Attorney General William P.
Barr took over.
Mr. Barr has contacted foreign officials for help in investigating the origin of the
special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference and ties
with Mr. Trump's campaign, part of an effort to prove that the whole matter was a "hoax," as
the president has insisted.
Mr. Trump defends himself by saying that other presidents have leaned on foreign
governments for help. That is true, but when other presidents have pressured counterparts and
even held up American assistance to coerce cooperation, it has generally been to achieve
certain policy goals -- not to advance the president's personal or political agenda.
As an example, Mr. Trump often cites Mr. Obama, who was overheard telling President Dmitri
Medvedev of Russia in 2012 that he would have more "more flexibility" to negotiate missile
defense after the fall election. While that may be objectionable, it is not the same thing as
asking a foreign government to intervene in an American election.
"They assume everybody's as sleazy and dirty as they are, which is not the case," Mr.
Mr. Trump points to Mr. Biden, arguing that the former vice president was the one who
abused his power by threatening to withhold $1 billion in American aid to Ukraine unless it
fired its prosecutor general.
Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company,
earning $50,000 a month. The company's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been a subject
of cases overseen by the prosecutor, and so Mr. Trump contends that Mr. Biden sought the
prosecutor's ouster to benefit his son.
As a matter of appearances, at least, the former vice president's family left him open to
suspicion. Even some of his defenders say it was unseemly for Hunter Biden to seemingly trade
on his family name. The elder Mr. Biden has said he never discussed his son's business
dealings in Ukraine with him, but some Democrats suggest he should have if only to prevent
just such a situation from arising.
For all of that, however, no evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden moved to push out the
prosecutor to benefit his son. No memo or text message has become public linking the two.
None of the American officials who were involved at the time have come forward alleging any
connection. No whistle-blower has filed a complaint.
In pressing for the prosecutor's ouster, Mr. Biden was carrying out Mr. Obama's policy as
developed by his national security team and coordinated with European allies and the
International Monetary Fund, all of which considered the Ukrainian prosecutor to be
deliberately overlooking corruption.
Indeed, at the time Mr. Biden acted, there was no public evidence that the prosecutor's
office was actively pursuing investigations of Burisma, although Mr. Zlochevsky's allies say
the prosecutor continued to use the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from the
oligarch and his team.
The 1992 episode involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker provides an intriguing case study in the
way previous administrations have viewed seeking political help overseas. At the time, Mr.
Bush was trailing in the polls and eager for any weapon to turn things around.
Representatives Robert K. Dornan, Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham of California and Sam
Johnson of Texas urged the president to ask Russia and Britain for help.
Mr. Dornan, reached last week, said Mr. Baker offered no objections during the meeting.
"Baker sat there in the Oval Office like a bump on a log," he recalled. "He said nothing." If
Mr. Baker advised Mr. Bush not to reach out to foreign governments, then he did so after the
congressmen had left, Mr. Dornan said.
Mr. Dornan said that was a mistake and that Mr. Bush should have done as Mr. Trump has.
"The bottom line from me was, 'If you don't do this, Mr. President, leader of the free world,
you will lose,'" Mr. Dornan said. "And he didn't do it and he lost. Baker cost Bush that
As it was, Mr. Baker and some of his aides got in trouble anyway because State Department
employees searched Mr. Clinton's passport file to determine whether he had ever tried to
renounce his American citizenship. They found no such evidence, but an independent counsel
was appointed to investigate whether the search violated any laws.
The attorney general who requested the investigation? Mr. Barr, in his first tour running
the Justice Department. The independent counsel who was appointed? Joseph diGenova, a lawyer
now helping Mr. Giuliani look for information in Ukraine. In the passport case, Mr. diGenova
concluded that no laws had been broken and that he should never have been appointed in first
As for seeking help from Russia and Britain, Mr. Baker declined to comment last week, but
his peers said he did exactly as they would have. "It would have been ludicrous at that stage
to do anything," Mr. Skinner said. "Baker's decision was obviously the right one."
* Read the 1992 Memo President George Bush's Team
Sent About Seeking Foreign Help to Beat Bill Clinton
When Republican congressmen suggested Mr. Bush reach out to Russia or Britain for
information that could help him win his re-election race against Bill Clinton, James A. Baker
III, then the White House chief of staff, wrote this memo.
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
wendy davis on Wed, 10/09/2019 - 10:47am Warning : Absurdist Irony Abounds:
From Patrick Martin at wsws.org , Oct. 9, 2019 :
'Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this "whistleblower"?'
" Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations -- and
three who served for a period under Donald Trump -- have signed an "Open Letter to the American
People" defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has
become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the
The signers "applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but
also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such
They further claim, "A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that
serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed What's more, being a responsible
whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of
They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower's identity must be protected at
all costs, writing that "he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our
This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more
convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more
leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.
The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ,
former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama's point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who
signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department's National
Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the
National Security Council.
These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism.
Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments
around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA
torture in secret overseas prisons during the "war on terror."
None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they
were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus
and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they
have been brutally persecuted." [snip]
"In a recent commentary in Consortium News , Kiriakou noted the contrast between his
own treatment and that accorded the "whistleblower" in the Ukraine case. He wrote, "If he's a
whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career
is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing." [snip]
"In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire "whistleblower" complaint against
Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.
Similar questions are raised in a remarkable
article posted Monday on the website of Rolling Stone magazine, written by its main
political writer Matt Taibbi."
And if you haven't seen it already:
"Meet the Press" anchor Chuck Todd grills senator: "You don't trust the FBI and CIA?", Barry
And of course Grey speaks to the irony and hypocrisy afoot with Senators Ron Johnson and
Chris Murphy as well:
"When Johnson evaded Todd's questions concerning Trump's bullying of Ukraine to advance his
personal electoral chances, and instead repeatedly raised the Clinton campaign's collaboration
with Ukrainian officials against Trump, Todd exclaimed as though in exasperated disbelief:
" Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA? "
Johnson replied, "Absolutely not," to which Todd responded incredulously, "You don't trust
any of those agencies?" [snip]
"The Democrats and their media chorus present what was rightly known as America's "Murder,
Incorporated," along with its domestic counterpart, the FBI, as pillars of "democracy,"
improbable as this would seem to anyone familiar with the criminal history of these
organizations. They evidently believe that the public is infinitely gullible and suffering from
collective memory loss.
These, after all, are the organizations that justified the war in Iraq on the basis of the
Big Lie of "weapons of mass destruction." They created the fraudulent narrative of the "war on
terror" to justify aggressive wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa that killed
millions and destroyed entire societies . Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, they funded and
collaborated with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist militias in wars for regime-change.
The CIA has engineered coups and installed military dictatorships and far-right regimes all
over the world. It would take many volumes to detail all of the lies and crimes of these
pillars of the "deep state" against the people of the United States and the entire world."
"Todd's next guest was Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat from Connecticut), who co-sponsored
with Johnson the bill to provide more arms to Kiev. Murphy repeatedly attacked Johnson for a
lack of "patriotism."
The final guest was John Brennan -- now a senior national security and intelligence analyst
for NBC -- whom Todd presented as a national hero unjustly slandered and victimized by Trump
and his political allies. Introducing the 25-year veteran of the CIA, who served as deputy
executive director under George W. Bush and director under Barack Obama, Todd asked: "And how
would you explain to somebody, you have been completely character assassinated and eviscerated
Do you understand how you got here?"
Brennan replied that he has indeed been "pilloried as an example of the deep state." To
which Todd exclaimed indignantly: "Well, at this point, it's a campaign to destroy the
credibility of the intelligence community. Even now, Senator Johnson would not affirm that he
trusted the CIA and FBI right now. What does that say about those two agencies right now and
their ability to conduct the work of protecting America?"
Brennan took the opportunity provided by Todd to denounce the "disinformation" that is
"inundating the airwaves," singling out "social media platforms," with the implication that
media sources that do not disseminate the CIA line should be shut down or censored. "
Grey finishes with a brief resumé of Brennan's fascistic Imperial crimes.
Yeah, the whole Biden corruption stuff has been debunked just like the Trump-Putin
conspiracy. But lots of people still believe one debunking or the other. It all depends on
which side of the infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and
And while we're at it, get a handle on what Hunter Biden, Biden's bundler, and the CIA
friendly former president of Poland were all doing on Burisma's board ostensibly with no
knowledge of it all from Obama's point man on Ukraine--Joe Biden.
officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out
the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
"... If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. ..."
From a former CIA whistleblower: "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president,
then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower
is supposed to go through the chain of command as the current whistleblower did...
"... To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday. ..."
"... take two shots ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... take eight shots ..."
"... Politico ..."
"... Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection ..."
To review; the wheels of impeachment were set in motion after the original whistleblower, a CIA
officer, approached House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's office with second-hand
information (a contact
Schiff lied about
) that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a
foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."
One of Schiff's aides then directed the
whistleblower, a registered Democrat, to a
Democratic operative attorney
worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. The CIA officer
then filed a whistleblower complaint on a
recently altered form
which now allows for the submission of second-hand
To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a
with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector
General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday.
How visibly shaken are we talking about?
According to a memo written by the first whistleblower on July 26, the day after the
Trump-Zelensky call, the White House official said the call was
"crazy," "frightening" and
"completely lacking in substance related to national security."
sought to pressure
the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the President's 2020 reelection bid."
the President pressured
Mr. Zelenskyy to..."
take two shots
So let's take a look at the 'pressure' impeachment-hungry Democrats continue
to claim Trump applied:
"I would like you to
do us a favor
has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it
I would like you to
find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine,
I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation I think you're
surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
I would like to have the Attorney
General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it
you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert
Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.
you can do,
it's very important that you do it if that's possible
The transcript makes clear no such pressure was applied, while Zelensky himself publicly stated
" to investigate matters requested by the Trump administration and Rudy Giuliani.
Democrats have also claimed that nearly $400 million in US military aid was paused in order to use
as leverage to kick start an investigation, however that theory has been relegated to at least the
side-burner after it emerged that
had no clue
it was being withheld at the time of the call.
Whatever the case, Democrats appear to be following the original script - as though Trump never
released the transcript and all we know comes from
inaccurate reporting first peddled
through MSM outlets
For example - the
's original reporting from September 18th, when the whistleblower story broke:
"Trump's interaction with the foreign leader
included a "promise"
"President Trump in a July phone call
president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, according to people familiar with the
matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky
about eight times
to work with Rudy
take eight shots
Yet, with the record having been set straight by both the transcript and Zelensky, and the CIA
whistleblower's credibility in tatters, Democrats appear to have passed the point of no return -
with a few realizing that the GOP-controlled Senate could flip the impeachment effort on Democrats
airing the Bidens' dirty laundry
along with other 'matters' in a very public
trial going into the 2020 election.
After Robert Mueller and the FBI took more than three years to prove an actual "conspiracy
theory" that Trump was 'colluding' with Russia,
describes documented Ukrainian
election meddling in 2016 as just that -
writing that the whistleblower "detailed key
aspects of the [Trump-Zelensky] conversation, including Mr. Trump's request for investigations into
former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, and a
about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.
take a shot
As a matter of fact,
a DNC operative
coordinate with Ukrainians to meddle
in the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton,
as has been by now
. Veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa
worked directly with the
in the United States,
along with investigative reporter Michael
to target Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort according to
They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with
," said Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the embassy at the time,
adding "the embassy
worked very closely
"If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement with Russia, she can
get a hearing in Congress by September," Telizhenko recalls Chalupa saying.
Thanks to Chalupa's outreach on behalf of Clinton and the DNC,
Ukraine's Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU - which Joe Biden helped
form) and lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko
released a "black ledger" containing off-book payments
. In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Sytnyk and Leshchenko "
" by releasing Manafort's name, according to the
Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection
LOL haha.......American leadership are a bunch of eunuchs! My
god.......our inner cities are basically third world
shitholes.........we've got ****** shaboons slashing patrons
throats in McDonald's and some grown man snowflake is "visibly
shaken" by a goddamn nothing burger of a phone call between
Presidents? Fuk outta here!
It's being reported this week by the AP and others that Energy
Secretary Rick Perry was involved in pressuring Ukrainian
president Zelensky to place hand-picked allies of Trump on the
board of the state gas company, Naftogaz, in order to steer
business to insiders that have given big bucks to Trump and the
Republicans, insiders like Soviet-born businessmen Lev Parnas and
Igor Fruman whose company, Global Energy Producers LLC, made
massive donations to Trump and the Republicans and which stood to
make millions supplying liquid natural gas to Ukraine if allies
placed on the board of Naftogaz could steer business to them. And
Trump's so-called lawyer, Rudy Giuliani was in the middle of this
facilitating the connections at the same time he was helping Trump
pressure the new president to investigate the Bidens and other
matters such as Manafort and CrowdStrike.
It shouldn't come as a
surprise to anyone that Don the Con and his band of thieves were
involved in their own corruption in Ukraine even as they
hypocritically pushed for an investigation into the Bidens. And
although this is mostly the kind of corruption that involves
insiders who made large political donations getting the payoff
they hoped for - which is, unfortunately, perfectly legal - it
wandered into possible criminal territory when it involved
removing from positions of power people seen as obstructions to
this attempt to gorge at the trough. That included the American
ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and members of the
supervisory board of the state gas company, Naftogaz,
who are supposed to help root out corruption. Not if Trumptards
have their way!
And, laughably, Trump is using concern for corruption in the
Ukrainian government as his cover for pushing for an investigation
of the Bidens. And he hopes to get away with it with his usual
barrage of chutzpah and lies . . . and with the help of the
ignorant rubes that support him.
Rudy – For years Obama had a pay for play operation in
his administration and it's disgusting and one of the reasons
they're fighting so hard – If Biden comes out, so does Clinton
come out and about three others. This goes right to the top of
the Obama administration and the administration that says, 'I
didn't have scandals' will be the most scandal ridden
administration in our history. Obama didn't care about
ethics. He didn't care otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Joe – That's right
Rudy – A Vice President should have been stopped from
doing this by a President who had the slightest bit of
integrity. But a Chicago 'pol' like Obama – pay for play eight
times – millions of dollars to your Vice President [Biden] and
hundreds of millions of dollars to your Secretary of State
[Hillary Clinton]. They just bought the offices. Crooks.
USA is made up of largely people who will vote Trump back in 2020,
but because of this Democrats have no ability to control
themselves and so lies, hear say, and just general jackholery will
be their direction. Fine. I am cool with it bitch all you want,
have fun making up lies to make yourselves feel better but most of
the rest of us. We just feel bad for you, its like an emotional
break down of someone you know. It's kinda scary, but at the same
time I am no longer interested in rebuking you for being "off" you
just have to seek help at this point. As for Trump, he's not the
greatest president but the insanity of what's gone on has forced
him to be our choice again because no party is willing to put
forth middle of the ground candidates that appeal to the country
Remember this we're all Americans and we're just worried about you
TDS people at this point, you need help. And Trump would be best
to put the entire congress on hiatus as did Boris Johnson until
the next election.
There was a time Dems in Government stood for something..
In examining the CIA's past and present use of the U.S. media, the
Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the
potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating
or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the
damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which
may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists
and media organizations.
When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of
the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in
foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for
impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".
The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the