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.
"... Toward the end of the segment , Bartiromo asked Graham: "Who do you think is the mastermind of this? Whose idea was it to insert Donald Trump into Russia meddling?" ..."
"... Graham responded: "You know, I really am very curious about the role the CIA played here. We know that the FISA warrant application was based on a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who was biased against Trump, that was unverified. That's one problem. But this whole intelligence operation -- what role did the CIA play?" ..."
"... "Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?" ..."
"... "Yes, it is, and it's also quite sensitive. The specifics are quite sensitive." ..."
"... "We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA's foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there -- so they could piece it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here." ..."
"... So, it's an intelligence-sharing operation between " ..."
"... Right. We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected." ..."
"... "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign. I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials." ..."
"... "We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then, obviously, we're going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware of [the dossier]?" ..."
"... "Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan – so we got that information from our source, right? The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did." ..."
"... "So what you're saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle part of September in your investigation?" ..."
told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that Justice
Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz was "doing a very in-depth dive about the FISA warrant application" and "the behavior
regarding the counterintelligence operation."
Graham noted that he believed Horowitz's
report would be coming out in "weeks -- not days, not months" and would prove to be "ugly and damning regarding the Department of
Justice's handling of the Russian probe." Graham noted that the IG's report has been delayed because "every time you turn around,
you find something new."
Graham said he wants the IG's report to be as declassified as possible in order for the "American public to hear the story."
Graham said that prosecutor John Durham "will be looking at criminality, did somebody violate the law," while Horowitz "will be
telling us about the good, the bad, and the ugly, and what should be done internally." He went so far as to mention exploring a possible
restructuring of the Department of Justice.
Toward the end of the segment , Bartiromo
asked Graham: "Who do you think is the mastermind of this? Whose idea was it to insert Donald Trump into Russia meddling?"
Graham responded: "You know, I really am very curious about the role the CIA played here. We know that the FISA warrant application
was based on a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who was biased against Trump, that was unverified. That's one problem. But
this whole intelligence operation -- what role did the CIA play?"
Graham then went a step further, asking: "Who knew about this in the White House? Here's a question: Was President Obama briefed
on the fact that they were opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign? I'd like to know that."
Bartiromo, who noted that Brennan was running the CIA at that time and would have likely provided the Obama briefing, asked Graham
if he was going to call Brennan to testify before Congress. Graham responded somewhat cryptically, saying only, "We'll see."
Brennan appears to have played a key role in
establishing the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign -- including making repeated use of questionable
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper personally confirmed foreign intelligence involvement during
congressional testimony in May 2017:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States
about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?"
James Clapper: "Yes, it is, and it's also quite sensitive. The specifics are quite sensitive."
Brennan has testified to Congress that any information,
specifically "anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign was shared with the bureau [FBI]." Brennan also admitted
that it was his intelligence that helped establish the
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Focus on Intelligence Role Prior to FBI Probe
John Solomon of The Hill, who has extensively covered the Spygate scandal, told Bartiromo in an
interview that he was hearing that "John
Durham and Bill Barr are focused on the part before the FBI officially got started on July 31, 2016, the period of March to July,
and whether intelligence assets -- Western, private, or U.S. -- were deployed in an earlier effort to start probing the Trump campaign
and its Russia ties -- maybe lay the breadcrumb trail of evidence that Christopher Steele then collected up and gave to the FBI."
Solomon noted that when Attorney General Barr said, "I believe there was political surveillance going on," this was likely what
he was referring to.
This focus on the spring of 2016 is particularly interesting given that during this time, Brennan appeared to have employed the
reverse targeting on members of the Trump campaign. Reverse targeting refers to the targeting of a foreign individual with the
intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen. During an
Aug. 17, 2018, interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Brennan said:
"We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA's foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally
collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would
not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was
of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there -- so they could piece it together with whatever they
were collecting domestically here."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of traditional channels -- was gathered on members of the Trump
campaign, Brennan began his process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from
the CIA director helped push the FBI toward establishing a formal counterintelligence investigation.
Role of Joseph Mifsud
Solomon also discussed the role of Joseph Mifsud, the individual who told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos in March 2016
that Russia had Hillary Clinton emails. Solomon noted that he had recently interviewed Stefan Roe, Mifsud's lawyer, who told him
that Mifsud "had long worked with Western intelligence" and that he was "asked to connect George Papadopoulos to Russia -- meaning
it was an operation, some form of an intelligence operation."
As Solomon noted, this would mean that the "flashpoint that started the whole investigation was, in fact, manufactured from the
beginning." Solomon also noted that "both John Durham and two different committees in Congress have recently reached out to get this
evidence from the lawyer, which includes an audiotaped deposition that Mr. Mifsud gave his lawyer before he went into hiding."
Bartiromo closed by asking Solomon
the same question she put to Graham, "Who do you think is the mastermind?" Solomon responded in a similar fashion to Graham, noting:
"I think the CIA. We have to take a closer look at them. We're starting to see some sign of it."
Role of UK Intelligence
Luke Harding, a journalist for The Guardian, had
on the early involvement of UK intelligence and their interaction with the U.S. intelligence community, noting that Britain's
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was engaged in collecting information on the Trump campaign and transmitting it to
the United States beginning in late 2015:
"In late 2015, the British eavesdropping agency GCHQ was carrying out standard 'collection' against Moscow targets. The intelligence
was handed to the U.S. as part of a routine sharing of information," Harding wrote in an article on Nov. 15, 2017.
Additionally, in the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then-head of GCHQ, traveled to Washington to personally
meet with Brennan:
"That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the U.S. to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed
so important that it was handled at 'director level,' face-to-face between the two agency chiefs," Harding reported.
Around the same time, Brennan formed an inter-agency
task force comprising an estimated six agencies and government departments. Brennan appeared to describe the task force formation
during the Aug. 17, 2018, interview with MSNBC's Maddow:
Maddow: " So, it's an intelligence-sharing operation between "
Brennan: " Right. We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure
that those proverbial dots would be connected."
FBI's 'Mid-Year Exam' Team Shifts to Trump Probe
By the spring of 2016, the Clinton email investigation was winding down. This was due in large part to the fact that the Department
of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had decided to set an
unusually high threshold for the prosecution of Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she wouldn't be charged.
In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the department required the FBI to establish evidence of intent -- even though the gross
negligence statute explicitly doesn't require that.
It was at this same time that Trump campaign adviser Papadopoulos had his April 26, 2016,
meeting with Mifsud, followed
a few weeks later with his
ill-fated meeting with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in May. The meeting with Downer, then Australia's high commissioner
to the UK, was established through
a chain of two intermediaries.
Downer's conversation with Papadopoulos was reportedly disclosed to the FBI on July 22, 2016, through Australian government channels,
although it also may have come directly from Downer himself via the U.S. Embassy in London. Details from the conversation between
Downer and Papadopoulos were then used by the FBI to open its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign on July 31,
Interestingly, the information allegedly relayed by Papadopoulos during the Downer meeting -- that the Russians had damaging information
on Clinton -- appears nearly identical to claims later contained in the first memo from former MI6 spy and dossier author Christopher
Steele that the FBI obtained in early July 2016.
Steele's first dossier
document , dated June 20, 2016, noted that "a dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the
Russian Intelligence Services over many years."
Which raises a good question, recently posed
by internet researcher Nick Weil on Twitter: "When the FBI got the tip from Alexander Downer that the Russians had Hillary's
33k emails, the appropriate action would have been to re-open Mid Year Exam, no?"
Rather than deciding to re-examine the "Mid-Year Exam" investigation, which looked into Clinton's handling of her emails and use
of a private server, the FBI instead used this information to establish an investigation into the Trump campaign.
What makes this sequence of events even more telling is exactly when the FBI first received information from Steele.
After Steele's company was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016, he began to reach out to the FBI through Michael Gaeta, an FBI agent
and assistant legal attaché at the
U.S. Embassy in Rome whom Steele had worked with on the FIFA case. Gaeta also headed up the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit,
which specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Gaeta would later be identified as Steele's FBI handler, in a July 16, 2018, congressional testimony before the House Judiciary
and Oversight committees by FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Following a reported
initial meeting that took place during late June 2016 in Rome, Gaeta
traveled to London on July 5, 2016, and met with Steele at the offices of Steele's firm, Orbis. During the July 5 meeting, Steele
provided the first memo in his dossier to Gaeta for ultimate transmission back to the FBI and the State Department.
At the exact time that Gaeta was meeting with Steele, on July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the closure of
the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state.
During the July 5, 2016,
press conference , Comey recommended that Clinton not be charged, stating, "We cannot find a case that would support bringing
criminal charges on these facts." Comey also noted that "although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like
this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
With the July 5 closure of the Clinton investigation, many of the same FBI agents who had worked on the case were assigned to
the agency's July 31, 2016, counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign -- the opening of which was based on little more
than details from the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos, provided by the Australian government. Although all investigative
focus fell on the Trump campaign, the fact that Downer said that the Russians had Clinton's emails appears not to have been an impetus
for the FBI to reopen the Clinton email investigation.
CIA's Use of Unofficial Intel on Trump Campaign
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who has seen the electronic communication that was used to officially open the FBI's counterintelligence
investigation, has publicly stated , "We now know that
there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation."
Contrast Nunes's statement with what Brennan testified
before Congress on May 23, 2017:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials
and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign. I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required
further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials."
Brennan has claimed that
he didn't see the dossier until "later in that year; I think it was in December ." Brennan also stated in his testimony that
the CIA didn't rely on the Steele dossier and that it "was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment
that was done."
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack Rewind 10 Seconds Next Up Live 00:00 00:00 00:00 Closed Captions Settings Fullscreen
click to watch video
But this claim was countered during the July 16, 2018,
testimony of former FBI lawyer Page, when the following discussion took place regarding Brennan's August 2016 briefing of then-Sen.
Rep. Mark Meadows: "We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and
then, obviously, we're going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware of [the dossier]?"
Lisa Page: "Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan – so we got that information from our source, right?
The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did
the CIA provide it to us if they did."
While some within the FBI likely had parts of the dossier in early July, Page testified that the counterintelligence investigative
team didn't receive it until mid-September -- likely during a trip to Rome, where they met with Steele:
Rep. Meadows: "So what you're saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle
part of September in your investigation?"
Page: "That is correct, sir."
Was Reid's Letter Based on Steele Dossier Info?
In the days following Brennan's briefing, Reid
sent a letter on Aug. 27,
2016, to Comey demanding an investigation -- and that the investigation be made public. Based on Brennan's briefing, it's highly
likely that Reid knew an FBI investigation was already underway. Some of the details contained within Reid's letter relate to former
Trump adviser Carter Page and match details contained only within the Steele dossier at the time.
Specifically, Reid claimed that Page had "conflicts of interest due to investments in Russia energy conglomerate Gazprom" and
that he had "met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow in July of 2016, well after Trump became the presumptive
Page's investment in Gazprom was known prior to Reid's letter, but it appears that the first public allegations that Page had
met with "high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow" weren't made until Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff published his
U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin " on Sept. 23, 2016, based on information directly from Christopher
Prior to Isikoff's September article, the only place that information had been referenced, aside from Reid's letter, was in a
July 19, 2016, Steele
dossier memo (there is also a mention in a sequentially earlier, but undated memo from Steele). The Steele dossier wouldn't become
public until its Jan. 10, 2017,
During his May 2017 testimony, Brennan discussed his briefings to the Gang of Eight. Brennan testified that the briefings were
done "in consultation with the White House" and stated that he gave the "same briefing to each of the Gang of Eight members." Notably,
Brennan conducted his briefings individually over a period of almost a full month between Aug. 11, 2016, and Sept. 6, 2016.
However, Nunes has stated that he wasn't given the same briefing as was Reid, despite that Nunes held the position of chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee at the time. Nunes made this disclosure in a July 28, 2019,
interview with Bartiromo, noting: "We now know that John Brennan briefed Harry Reid on the dossier in August 2016. At the same
time, he never briefed me or Paul Ryan, who was the speaker of the House at the time."
Brennan's Role in Official Reports
The last major segment of Brennan's efforts involved a series of three reports. The
first report was released on Oct. 7, 2016, and the
on Dec. 29, 2016.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of Trump as president. Notably,
Adm. Mike Rogers, then director of the National Security Agency , publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only
a moderate confidence level.
As previously noted, while Brennan has denied using the dossier in the ICA, he did attach a two-page summary of the dossier to
the intelligence community assessment that he, along with Clapper and Comey, delivered to President Barack Obama on Jan. 6, 2017.
Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey, Brennan,
and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the ICA and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
that he'd done so at the request of Clapper and Brennan, "because that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community
agreed he needed to be told about."
Halper has links to the CIA and MI6. He also served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan
Halper met with Carter Page, a volunteer adviser to the Trump campaign, at a Cambridge
symposium held on July 11 and 12, 2016. Page had just returned from a trip to Russia a few days
prior and said he remained in contact with Halper for a number of months after that.
Page's trip became the core subject of the Steele dossier -- a collection of unsubstantiated
claims about Trump-Russia collusion put together by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele that
was paid for by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National
Committee. The dossier was used by the FBI as the core evidence to obtain from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court a warrant to spy on Page several weeks before the presidential
On Sept. 2, 2016, Halper also contacted George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide,
and offered $3,000 and a paid trip to London to write a paper about a gas field in the
Mediterranean Sea. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and flew to London, where he met Halper and
On Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, 2016, Halper also met with Trump campaign co-Chairman Sam Clovis in
Northern Virginia and offered help to the Trump campaign with foreign policy, The Washington
Halper's concern about Lokhova is portrayed as feigned in her complaint, since he seemed to
have shown no concern for about two years after the 2014 Flynn meeting, only showing concern
after Flynn started to aid Trump.
In fact, Halper appears himself to be rather close to Russian intelligence, having invited
Vladimir Trubnikov, former director of Russian intelligence, to teach at CIS at least twice --
in 2012 and in 2015 -- according to the complaint. Trubnikov obliged him both times.
Between 2012 and 2017, Halper was
paid more than a $1 million by the Office of Net Assessment, a strategy think tank that
falls directly under the U.S. secretary of defense.
Adam Lovinger, an analyst at the think tank, raised alarm about the contracts to Halper,
but was punished for it , according to his lawyer.
Flynn was one of the most consequential post-9/11 intelligence officials in the world.
"Mike Flynn's impact on the nation's War on Terror probably trumps any other single person
as his energy and skill at harnessing the Intelligence Community into a focused effort was
literally historic," wrote then-Brig. Gen. John Mulholland in Flynn's 2007 performance
At the time, Flynn headed intelligence at the Joint Special Operations Command.
Mulholland, himself a former special forces officer, called Flynn "easily the best
intelligence professional of any service serving today."
In 2014, however, he was forced into retirement over disagreements with the Obama
More than a year ago, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to two FBI agents about conversations
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place when former President Barack Obama
imposed additional sanctions on Russia in December 2016.
He also pleaded guilty to lying about asking Russia to vote against or delay the vote on a
U.N. Security Council resolution.
Finally, he pleaded guilty to lying about his foreign lobbying disclosures regarding the
extent to which his work benefiting the Turkish government was overseen by that government.
Foreign lobbying paperwork violations are seldom prosecuted. Flynn said the work started in
August 2016; he shut down his lobbying firm in November 2016.
Flynn has extensively cooperated with government prosecutors
on multiple investigations and further cooperation will give him yet more grounds to ask
for a lenient sentence. Even before the delay, the prosecutors were asking for a lenient
sentence, including no prison time, while the defense wanted no more than a year of probation
and community service.
Lt. Gen. Michael
Flynn appears to have put the team of former special counsel Robert Mueller on the
defensive, unraveling what had been suggested to be a possible unofficial deal with the
Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to
one count of lying to the FBI. The Mueller team recommended a light sentence for him, including
no prison time, officially because of his contrition for the crime and extensive cooperation
with multiple Justice Department investigations.
But it appears that another, unofficial, deal may have been in place.
Several weeks before Flynn signed his plea,
NBC News reported , based on unnamed sources, that the Mueller team was trying to get
Flynn's cooperation by threatening to indict his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
"If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son it
could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences," the article
This isn't how an official plea deal would work, according to former FBI agent and Epoch
Times contributor Marc Ruskin.
"It would be done with a wink and a nod," he said in a previous phone interview, later
adding that "it wouldn't be binding, but it would be like an understanding."
It's not clear whether any such deal was reached and if so, what specifically it entailed.
But Flynn's case involves a number of peculiarities that suggest something was going on behind
'Star Witness' Strzok
Flynn's statement of offense attached to his plea acknowledges that he lied to the FBI
during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
However, the FBI agent that wrote the report from the interview was Peter Strzok, who was
later kicked off the Mueller team after the revelation of his animus toward Trump in texts
then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was later
fired from the bureau, while Page left on her own.
"Michael Flynn would have faced no legal jeopardy at all if he just wouldn't have pleaded
guilty because they would have never gotten a conviction with Peter Strzok as their star
witness," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee,
told Fox News on Dec. 4.
Flynn's statement also included an admission that the forms submitted by lawyers for his
now-defunct lobbying company, Flynn Intel Group (FIG), contained false and misleading
Flynn was never charged with lying on the forms and neither was his son, who also worked for
The Mueller team simply used Flynn's admission to charge Flynn's former partner in FIG,
Bijan Rafiekian, and Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman and FIG's client, with false
statements on the lobbying forms and for conspiring to act as unregistered lobbyists for
The lobbying involved an op-ed published in The Hill under Flynn's name about Fethullah
Gulen, an Islamic cleric living in exile in Pennsylvania who runs a group that Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed for an attempted 2016 coup.
Flynn was supposed to testify on the case and has asked the court to delay his sentencing
until after that matter is concluded.
Last month, however, Flynn made an unexpected move. He fired his lawyers -- the same lawyers
he hired to do the lobbying paperwork for his firm. His new team includes Sidney Powell, a
former federal prosecutor who is a
critic of corruption in the Justice Department in general and of Mueller in particular.
Later that month, the Mueller team asked Flynn to testify that he signed the lobbying forms
knowing about the false statements and intending for them.
He refused , saying he only acknowledged the falsities with hindsight, but wasn't aware of
them at the time.
This angered Brandon Van Grack, one of Mueller's main prosecutors, according to Flynn's
Shortly after that, the Mueller team did several things that Powell called a
They called off Flynn's testimony and tried to put a gag order on him to stop him from
disclosing that fact.
Then they tried to recast him as a co-conspirator in the lobbying case, despite earlier
telling the court multiple times that he wasn't one.
They also had an FBI agent directly call and question Flynn Jr. "despite knowing that he was
represented by counsel," Flynn's lawyers said in a court filing. "The Agent persisted in trying
to speak with him even after he said to call his attorney."
If Flynn is indeed being punished for reneging on the "wink and a nod" deal, the Mueller
team seems to have the short end of the stick now because, officially, there is no deal.
The judge in the lobbying case made it clear that the government has yet to prove there was
a conspiracy to begin with, not to mention that Flynn was a co-conspirator. Meanwhile, Powell
told the judge in the Flynn case that the severity of his sentence shouldn't be affected
because he's still cooperating with the government -- he simply clarified that what the Mueller
team wanted him to say went beyond what he'd previously acknowledged and wasn't true.
If there was a deal, the Mueller team has by and large already delivered on its side of it.
Whatever leverage it had over Flynn now appears about spent. Does Van Grack still have a card
or two to play? And if so, does he really want to tip his hand?
On July 12, the Mueller team handed a statement to Rafiekian's
lawyers saying that the government has "multiple independent pieces of information relating
to the Turkish government's efforts to influence United States policy on Turkey and Fethullah
Gulen, including information relating to communications, interactions, and a relationship
between Ekim Alptekin and Michael Flynn because of Michael Flynn's relationship with an ongoing
presidential campaign without any reference to [Rafiekian] or FIG."
Rafiekian's lawyers seized on the statement, arguing that Flynn was
"secretly acting on behalf of Turkey."
But they also acknowledged that they haven't seen any such evidence.
Powell seemed unimpressed.
"We have no idea what the government is talking about. It smacks of desperation," she said in a
statement , highlighting that during Trump's presidential campaign "countless people"
reached out to Flynn, who was an adviser to Trump.
"Whatever it is, it cannot be new information to the prosecution, and it was only a few
months ago prosecutors recommended probation for him," Powell said. "As we have said in our
recent filings, this can only be retaliation for his refusal to answer a question the way they
The Mueller team's claim raises more questions: How did it get this information? How long
have they been sitting on it and why? If Alptekin reached out to Flynn on behalf of Turkey
explicitly because Flynn advised Trump, why haven't we heard about it by now? Did Turkey reach
out to the Clinton camp too? After all, it was Clinton who was widely expected to replace
President Barack Obama, who already had an amicable relationship with Erdogan.
In fact, just days before Rafiekian and Alptekin engaged in talks about the Gulen job in
July 2016, Obama called Erdogan "to deliver what a senior administration official described as
a 'shout-out' for his resilience in the face of a failed coup attempt, and to express relief
that the Turkish president and his family were safe," The
New York Times reported .
Turkey was trying to make the Obama administration extradite Gulen, but why it would try to
get help specifically from Flynn, who was known to be at odds with the Obama administration,
If the Obama administration, however, somehow learned that Flynn's firm, unregistered to
boot, was working for Alptekin, who is known to have ties to Erdogan, it would have given it a
perfect pretext to target Flynn for FISA surveillance as an "agent of a foreign power."
While it has been speculated that the FBI took out a FISA warrant on Flynn to spy on the
Trump campaign, that hasn't been confirmed.
Update: The article has been updated to reflect that Michael Flynn continues to cooperate
includes personalizing content and advertising. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
They are afraid to admin that a color revolution was launched to depose Trump after the
elections of 2016. Essentially a coup d'état by intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of
"... The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA. ..."
"... The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources . ..."
"... Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. ..."
"... The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. ..."
"... The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. ..."
"... The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton's opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump ..."
"... The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. ..."
"... Attorney General Bill Barr's recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed." ..."
As the Russiagate circus attempts to quietly disappear over the horizon, with Democrats
preferring to shift the anti-Trump narrative back to "racist", "white supremacist",
"xenophobe", and the mainstream media ready to squawk "recession"; the Trump administration may
have a few more cards up its sleeve before anyone claims the higher ground in this farce we
call an election campaign.
The Hill's John Solomon details, in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV
colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents
showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may
have done wrong in the Russia probe.
And while it's been almost a year since then, of feet-dragging and cajoling and
deep-state-fighting, we wonder, given Solomon's revelations below, if the president is getting
ready to play his 'Trump' card.
Here are the documents that
Solomon believes have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
Steele 's confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau
parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers
met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my
sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with
Steele, such as the existence of the classified
Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery
if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his
ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits
and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.
2.) The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in
the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after
sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told,
including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had
Russia-related contacts at the CIA.
3.) The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based
American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk,
worked as FBI sources . We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted
Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the
election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working
his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior
advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show
what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was
paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government's
4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and
his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and
discussed with DOJ about using Steele's dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If
those concerns weren't shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major
5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these
documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or
captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI
undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked
Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that
statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be
another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified
briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer
of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the
documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as
having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren't initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI
7.) The Steele spreadsheet. I
wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every
claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the
claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet
rumors. Given Steele's own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before
Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI's final analysis of his credibility. A
I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele's information as only "minimally
corroborated" and the bureau's confidence in him as "medium."
9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of
four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special
Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one
FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told
the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained
both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to
infiltrate Trump's orbit.
10.) Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S.
allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to
assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have
searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence . My sources
say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr's
recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and
counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is
unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed."
These documents, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine
counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a
presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by
I disagree with Solomon. Nothing will "doom" the swamp unless the righteous few are
willing to indict, prosecute and carry out sentencing for the guilty. Exposing the guilty
accomplishes nothing, because anyone paying attention already knows of their crimes. Those
who want to believe lies will still believe them after the truth comes out.
It's ALL A WASTE OF TIME unless we follow through.
As if there's any major philosophical difference between the Librtads and Zionist
Both sides use the .gov agencies to subvert and ignore the Constitution whenever possible.
Best example is WikiLeaks and how each party wished Assange would just go away when he
revealed damaging information about both sides on multiple occasions.
A nice analysis of the rhetorical structure of conspiracy theories in general.
Another important aspect of this: the use of conspiracy theories to generate propaganda
sufficiently toxic to severely damage or even destroy political opponents. For instance,
The mainstream media, since 2016, while railing against the conspiratorial mindset expressed
in Internet alternative media channels, have been wallowing in it, promoting it with all the
power at their disposal. Talk about twisty and sinister doublethink. One could almost describe
it as diabolical.
They are often portraying false conspiracy theories as truth, and true conspiracy research
as lies -- turning reality upside down and inside out.
"... "The failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that they are shifting from the Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism Witch Hunt ," Trump wrote on Twitter ..."
"... Systematic deception by the press is a national security issue. In a real crisis, 2/3rds of this country is not going to believe either the government nor the media. That will be a real problem, and it's a massive weakness. ..."
"... Neoliberal MSM propaganda like heroin. Those "news" outlets don't care about actual facts or news, they are more script writers than anything else. ..."
President Trump slammed the "failing New York Times" on Sunday after leaked comments from executive editor Dean Baquet revealed
that the paper is pivoting from the Russia narrative (which he described as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed") to 'Trump is a
"The failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that
they are shifting from the Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism
Witch Hunt ," Trump wrote on Twitter, adding "'Journalism' has reached a new low in the history of our Country. It is nothing more
than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very
sick joke But the public is aware! The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very sick joke But the public
Systematic deception by the press is a national security issue. In a real crisis, 2/3rds of this country is not going to believe either the government nor the media. That will be a real problem, and it's a massive weakness.
Neoliberal MSM propaganda like heroin. Those "news" outlets don't care about actual facts or news, they are more script
writers than anything else. These pretend journalists have conjured up a narrative and it is all about repeat repeat repeat,
keeping that constant drip going into the vein of the Dem constituency. It's been going on for decades and the only people that
are too stupid to see it are the Dems themselves.
STEPHEN COHEN: I'm not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European Commission, if you're talking about the 2008 war,
the European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that he
began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama's best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So that- Russia didn't begin that war. And it didn't begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by [continents], the overthrow
of the Ukrainian president in 14 after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to happen. And I think it happened
within 36 hours. The Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and betrayed. They use this word, predatl'stvo,
betrayal, about American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when it wasn't just President George Bush, all the documents have
been published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union
that under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two
inches to the east.
Now NATO is sitting on Russia's borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So Russians aren't fools, and they're good-hearted, but they
become resentful. They're worried about being attacked by the United States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily,
we are under attack by the United States. And this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being put out that Russia
somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been sleeping. I didn't see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is reckless, dangerous,
warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has a better case for saying they've been attacked by us since 1991. We put our military
alliance on the front door. Maybe it's not an attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
AARON MATE: We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement
with the very corruption of Russia you're speaking about
Few appear to be aware that Bill Browder is single-handedly responsible for starting, and spreading, the rumor that Putin's
net worth is $200 billion (for those who are unfamiliar with Browder, I highly recommend watching Andrei Nekrasov's documentary
titled " The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes "). Browder
appears to have first
started this rumor early in 2015 , and has repeated it ad nauseam since then, including in
his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 . While Browder has always framed the $200 billion figure as his own
estimate, that subtle qualifier has had little effect on the media's willingness to accept it as fact.
Interestingly, during the press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Putin claimed Browder sent $400 million of ill-gotten gains
to the Clinton campaign. Putin
retracted the statement and claimed to have misspoke a week or so later, however by that time the $400 million figure had
been cited by numerous media outlets around the world. I think it is at least possible that Putin purposely exaggerated the amount
of money in question as a kind of tit-for-tat response to Browder having started the rumor about his net worth being $200 billion.
The stories I saw said there was a mistranslation -- but that the figure should have $400 thousand and not $400 million. Maybe
Putin misspoke, but the $400,000 number is still significant, albeit far more reasonable.
Putin never was on the Forbes list of billionaires, btw, and his campaign finance statement comes to far less. It never seems
to occur to rabid capitalists or crooks that not everyone is like them, placing such importance on vast fortunes, or want to be
dishonest, greedy, or power hungry. Putin is only 'well off' and that seems to satisfy him just fine as he gets on with other
interests, values, and goals.
Yes, $400,000 is the revised/correct figure. My having written that "Putin retracted the statement" was not the best choice
of phrase. Also, the figure was corrected the day after it was made, not "a week or so later" as I wrote in my previous comment.
From the Russia Insider link:
Browder's criminal group used many tax evasion methods, including offshore companies. They siphoned shares and funds from
Russia worth over 1.5 billion dollars. By the way, $400,000 was transferred to the US Democratic Party's accounts from these
funds. The Russian president asked us to correct his statement from yesterday. During the briefing, he said it was $400,000,000,
not $400,000. Either way, it's still a significant amount of money.
There's something weird about the anti-Putin hysteria. Somehow, many, many people have come to believe they must demonstrate
their membership in the tribe by accepting completely unsupported assertions that go against common sense.
In a sane world we the people would be furious with the Clinton campaign, especially the D party but the R's as well, our media
(again), and our intel/police State (again). Holding them all accountable while making sure this tsunami of deception and lies
never happens again.
It's amazing even in time of the internetz those of us who really dig can only come up with a few sane voices. It's much worse
now in terms of the numbers of sane voices than it was in the run up to Iraq 2.
Regardless of broad access to far more information in the digital age, never under estimate the self-preservation instinct
of American exceptionalist mythology. There is an inverse relationship between the decline of US global primacy and increasingly
desperate quest for adventurism. Like any case of addiction, looking outward for blame/salvation is imperative in order to prevent
the mirror of self-reflection/realization from turning back onto ourselves.
we're not to believe we're not supposed to believe we're supposed to believe
Believe whatever you want, however your comment gives the impression that you came to this article because you felt the need
to push back against anything that does not conform to the liberal international order's narrative on Putin and Russia, rather
than "with an eagerness to counterbalance the media's portrayal of Putin". WRT to whataboutism, I like
Greenwald's definition of the term :
"Whataboutism": the term used to bar inquiry into whether someone adheres to the moral and behavioral standards they seek
to impose on everyone else. That's its functional definition.
aye. I've never seen it used by anyone aside from the worst Hill Trolls.
Indeed, when it was first thrown at me, I endeavored to look it up, and found that all references to it were from Hillaryites
attempting to diss apostates and heretics.
The degree of consistency and or lack of hypocrisy based on words and actions separates US from Russia to an astonishing level.
That is Russia's largest threat to US, our deceivers. The propaganda tables have turned and we are deceiving ourselves to points
of collective insanity and warmongering with a great nuclear power while we are at it. Warmongering is who we are and what we
Does Russia have a GITMO, torture Chelsea Manning, openly say they want to kill Snowden and Assange? Is Russia building up
arsenals on our borders while maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and conducting several wars at any given moment while constantly
threatening to foment more wars? Is Russia dropping another trillion on nuclear arsenals? Is Russia forcing us to maintain such
an anti democratic system and an even worse, an entirely hackable electronic voting system?
You ready to destroy the world, including your own, rather than look in the mirror?
You're talking about extending Russian military power into Europe when the military spending of NATO Europe alone exceeds Russia's
by almost 5-1 (more like 12-1 when one includes the US and Canada), have about triple the number of soldiers than Russia has,
and when the Russian ground forces are numerically smaller than they have been in at least 200 years?
" to put their self-interests above those of their constituents and employees, why can't we apply this same lens to Putin and
The oligarchs got their start under Yeltsin and his FreeMarketDemocraticReformers, whose policies were so catastrophic that
deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year by the late '90s, with no end in sight. Central to Yeltsin's governance
was the corrupt privatization, by which means the Seven Bankers came to control the Russian economy and Russian politics.
Central to Putin's popularity are the measures he took to curb oligarchic predation in 2003-2005. Because of this, Russia's
debt:GDP ratio went from 1.0 to about 0.2, and Russia's demographic recovery began while Western analysis were still predicting
the death of Russia.
So Putin is the anti-oligarch in Russian domestic politics.
I know of many people who sacrifice their own interests for those of their children (over whom they have virtually absolute
power), family member and friends. I know of others who dedicate their lives to justice, peace, the well being of their nation,
the world, and other people -- people who find far greater meaning and satisfaction in this than in accumulating power or money.
Other people have their own goals, such as producing art, inventing interesting things, reading and learning, and don't care two
hoots about power or money as long as their immediate needs are met.
I'm cynical enough about humans without thinking the worst of everyone and every group or culture. Not everyone thinks only
of nails and wants to be hammers, or are sociopaths. There are times when people are more or less forced into taking power, or
getting more money, even if they don't want it, because they want to change things for the better or need to defend themselves.
There are people who get guns and learn how to use them only because they feel a need for defending themselves and family but
who don't like guns and don't want to shoot anyone or anything.
There are many people who do not want to be controlled and bossed around, but neither want to boss around anyone else. The
world is full of such people. If they are threatened and attacked, however, expect defensive reactions. Same as for most animals
which are not predators, and even predators will generally not attack other animals if they are not hungry or threatened -- but
that does not mean they are not competent or can be dangerous.
Capitalism is not only inherently predatory, but is inherently expansive without limits, with unlimited ambition for profits
and control. It's intrinsically very competitive and imperialist. Capitalism is also a thing which was exported to Russia, starting
soon after the Russian Revolution, which was immediately attacked and invaded by the West, and especially after the fall of the
Soviet Union. Soviet Russia had it's own problems, which it met with varying degrees of success, but were quite different from
the aggressive capitalism and imperialism of the US and Europe.
The pro-Putin propaganda is pretty interesting to witness, and of course not everything Cohen says is skewed pro-Putin – that's
what provides credibility. But "Putin kills everybody" is something NOBODY says (except Cohen, twice in one interview) – Putin
is actually pretty selective of those he decides to have killed. But of course, he doesn't kill anyone, personally – therefore
he's an innocent lamb, accidentally running Russia as a dictator.
The most recent dictator in Russian history was Boris Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature while it was in the legal
and constitutional process of impeaching him, and whose policies were so catastrophic for Russians (who were dying off at the
rate of 900k/yr) that he had to steal his re-election because he had a 5% approval rating.
But he did as the US gvt told him, so I guess that makes him a Democrat.
Under Putin Russia recovered from being helpless, bankrupt & dying, but Russia has an independent foreign policy, so that makes
Putin a dictator.
"Does any sane person believe that there will ever be a Putin-signed contract provided as evidence? Does any sane person believe
that Putin actually needs to "approve" a contract rather than signaling to his oligarch/mafia hierarchy that he's unhappy about
a newspaper or journalist's reporting?"
Why do you think Putin even needs, or feels a need, to have journalists killed in the first place? I see no evidence to support
this basic assumption.
The idea of Russia poised to attack Europe is interesting, in light of the fact that they've cut their military spending by
20%. And even before that the budgets of France, Germany, and the UK combined well exceeded that of Russia, to say nothing of
the rest of NATO or the US.
Putin's record speaks for itself. This again points to the absurdity of claiming he's had reporters killed: he doesn't need
to. He has a vast amount of genuine public support because he's salvaged the country and pieced it back together after the pillaging
of the Yeltsin years. That he himself is a corrupt oligarch I have no particular doubt of. But if he just wanted to enrich himself,
he's had a very funny way of going about it. Pray tell, what are these 'other interpretations'?
"The US foreign policy has been disastrous for millions of people since world war 2. But Cohen's arguments that Russia isn't
as bad as the US is just a bunch of whattaboutism."
What countries has the Russian Federation destroyed?
Here is a fascinating essay ["Are We Reading Russia Right?"] by Nicolai N. Petro who currently holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship
of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island. His books include, Ukraine
in Crisis (Routledge, 2017), Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004), The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard, 1995), and Russian
Foreign Policy, co-authored with Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Longman, 1997). A graduate of the University of Virginia, he is the recipient
of Fulbright awards to Russia and to Ukraine, as well as fellowships from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the National
Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington,
D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. As a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, he served as special assistant
for policy toward the Soviet Union in the U.S. Department of State from 1989 to 1990. In addition to scholarly publications
on Russia and Ukraine, he has written for Asia Times, American Interest, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian
(UK), The Nation, New York Times, and Wilson Quarterly. His writings have appeared frequently on the web sites of the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The National Interest.
Thanks for so much for this. Great stuff. Cohen says the emperor has no clothes so naturally the empire doesn't want him on
television. I believe he has been on CNN one or two times and I saw him once on the PBS Newshour where the interviewer asked skeptical
questions with a pained and skeptical look. He seems to be the only prominent person willing to stand up and call bs on the Russia
hate. There are plenty of pundits and commentators who do that but not many Princeton professors.
It has been said in recent years that the greatest failure of American foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq. I think that
they are wrong. The greatest failure, in my opinion, is to push both China and Russia together into a semi-official pact against
American ambitions. In the same way that the US was able to split China from the USSR back in the seventies, the best option was
for America to split Russia from China and help incorporate them into the western system. The waters for that idea have been so
fouled by the Russia hysteria, if not dementia, that that is no longer a possibility. I just wish that the US would stop sowing
dragon's teeth – it never ends well.
The best option, but the "American exceptionalists" went nuts. Also, the usual play book of stoking fears of the "yellow menace"
would have been too on the nose. Americans might not buy it, and there was a whole cottage industry of "the rising China threat"
except the potential consumer market place and slave labor factories stopped that from happening.
Bringing Russia into the West effectively means Europe, and I think that creates a similar dynamic to a Russian/Chinese pact.
The basic problem with the EU is its led by a relatively weak but very German power which makes the EU relatively weak or controllable
as long as the German electorate is relatively sedate. I think they still need the international structures run by the U.S. to
maintain their dominance. What Russia and the pre-Erdogan Turkey (which was never going to be admitted to the EU) presented was
significant upsets to the existing EU order with major balances to Germany which I always believed would make the EU potentially
more dynamic. Every decision wouldn't require a pilgrimage to Berlin. The British were always disinterested. The French had made
arrangements with Germany, and Italy is still Italy. Putting Russia or Turkey (pre-Erdogan) would have disrupted this arrangement.
"Putin's finger prints are all over the Balkan fiasco".How is that with Putin only becoming president in 2000 and the Nato
bombing started way beforehand. It's ridiculous to think that Putin had any major influence at that time as govenor or director
of the domestic intelligence service on what was going during the bombing of NATO on Belgrad. Even Gerhard Schroeder, then chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany, admitted in an interview in 2014 with a major German Newspaper (Die Zeit) that this invasion
of Nato was a fault and against international law!
Can you concrete what you mean by "fingerprints" or is this just another platitudes?
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
o Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently absurd MSM propaganda. For example,
the meme that releasing factual information about actual election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging
of its own nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
o Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on and lying to the American people,
spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer
o Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples of "norms-respecting Republican
o Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating Russian stooge.
The title sounds like it was written yesterday, despite the fact the article is two years
ago. That suggest that Russophobia is the official policy of both parties. Why they are trying to
remove Trump, who folded after thee month in power, is less clear. May be the crimes they
committed are such that anybody in power then Clinton gang is very dangerous for them.
Please looks also at selected comments. They are definitely sounds as written yesterday.
"... Congressional Democrats and their media allies have renewed their offensive in the past two weeks. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) even argues that the evidence already amassed seems to be enough to warrant President Trump's impeachment. It was especially notable that no prominent Democrat denounced such an inflammatory accusation. Indeed, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee appear to be escalating their concept of what constitutes a thorough investigation, now insisting that any contact by advisers to the Trump campaign with any Russian official be subject to scrutiny. ..."
"... They and their neoconservative allies also insist on a laser-like focus on the alleged misdeeds of the Trump people and nothing else. ..."
"... Such an outrageous accusation might have made even the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy blush. That it came from a prominent Republican also suggests that the current bout of Russophobia is not purely a partisan phenomenon. The broader implications are extremely worrisome. A campaign appears to be underway to intimidate and silence critics of the current policy toward Russia, and even policy regarding NATO. ..."
"... The track record on previous group think on such decisions as the military interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya also confirms that it can produce truly tragic results. Creating a similar situation of stifling debate regarding U.S. policy toward a nation armed with thousands of nuclear weapons is the essence of folly. ..."
or a brief period in April, it appeared that the campaign that Democrats and
neo-conservative Republicans were waging for a comprehensive investigation into the Trump
campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential
election had peaked and was beginning to ebb. The Trump administration's decision to launch
missile strikes against a Syrian air base despite Russian President Vladimir Putin vehement
objections to the assault on his ally, quieted accusations that Trump was Putin's puppet.
Indeed, hawks in bothparties praised
Trump for taking action in Syria, and the president's supporters at Fox News and elsewhere
contended that the U.S. attack discredited the notion that he was guilty of appeasing
But the hiatus in the allegations of collusion was only temporary. Worse, the resurgent
anti-Russia hysteria has broader, ominous implications for U.S. foreign policy and the health
of political discourse in the United States.
Congressional Democrats and their media allies have renewed their offensive in the past
two weeks. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) even argues
that the evidence already amassed seems to be enough to warrant President Trump's impeachment.
It was especially notable that no prominent Democrat denounced such an inflammatory accusation.
Indeed, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee appear to be escalating their concept of
what constitutes a thorough investigation, now insisting that any contact by advisers to the
Trump campaign with any Russian official be subject to scrutiny.
They and their neoconservative allies also insist on a laser-like focus on the alleged
misdeeds of the Trump people and nothing else. The current scandal erupted full force when
leaked reports from the U.S. intelligence community that newly installed National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn had met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign and
discussed sensitive issues, including the ongoing U.S. economic sanctions against Russia, thus
apparently undermining the Obama administration's policies. Flynn's action showed poor
judgment, and his attempt to conceal the contact from Vice President Mike Pence, was even
worse. A recent Washington Post article
contends that Flynn went ahead with his meeting even though senior Trump campaign officials
cautioned against it and warned him that it was almost certain that U.S. intelligence agencies
were electronically monitoring Kislyak and all of his contacts.
Examining Flynn's behavior is appropriate, but even that investigation should focus not only
on his questionable Russia contacts but on the leak of the intelligence report outing him.
Indeed, an intelligence official's unmasking the identity of an American citizen in that
fashion constitutes a felony. However, except for perfunctory statements from a few Democratic
members of Congress that such an illegal leak also needed to be investigated, little interest
has emerged in actually doing so.
Such an outrageous accusation might have made even the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy
blush. That it came from a prominent Republican also suggests that the current bout of
Russophobia is not purely a partisan phenomenon. The broader implications are extremely
worrisome. A campaign appears to be underway to intimidate and silence critics of the current
policy toward Russia, and even policy regarding NATO.
Attempting to enshrine Washington's group think on crucial issues is unhealthy for any
democratic system. The track record on previous group think on such decisions as the
military interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya also confirms that it can produce truly
tragic results. Creating a similar situation of stifling debate regarding U.S. policy toward a
nation armed with thousands of nuclear weapons is the essence of folly.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at the National Interest, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and
the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.
Mr. Carpenter makes the excellent point that political sobriety, rational thought and
action, and responsible dialogue is missing from the cadre of drum beating anti-Trump die
hearts, who are using the made-up Trump collusion story to destroy the Trump
Their kamikaze style political tactics will end badly for the democrats, who will be
pulverized during the next election for neglecting the people’s business in favor
of political scandal, turmoil and extremist partisan behavior.
Keep it up Chuck, you are working overtime to insure greater Republican gains.
Actually, I am an agent of all people who disapprove of Washington’s willingness
to use nuclear war in order to establish Washington’s hegemony over the world, but
let us understand what it means to be a “Russian agent.”
It means to respect international law, which Washington does not. It means to respect
life, which Washington does not. It means to respect the national interests of other
countries, which Washington does not. It means to respond to provocations with diplomacy
and requests for cooperation, which Washington does not. But Russia does. Clearly, a
“Russian agent” is a moral person who wants to preserve life and the national
identity and dignity of other peoples.
Aren't people in the US getting tired of the Russia bashing? Really. And don't the
Russia bashers know that the longer this goes on, without evidence, the public is slowly
waking up to the truth. Now to blame Russia for the US failings in Afghanistan is beyond
ridiculous. Keep it up, kiddies.
The success of the web of lies that got 65 to 75 percent of Americans to believe that
Saddam had WMD and was responsible for 9/11 only encourages these regime-change lunatics.
All they have to do now is articulate the equivalent of Bush’s “We cannot
wait for the smoking gun, which might come in the form of a mushroom cloud,”
— i.e., we don’t need evidence, we just need to generate enough fear —
and they’ll have all the public support they could possibly need to commence with
their program of regime change at home, followed by regime change in Russia. That’s
the diabolical beauty of governing a population through the politics of fear —
which has been the practise since the beginning of the first Cold War.
It's interesting that the Democrats and the media didn't seem very interested in
Hillary Clinton's foreign ties (and the money she received), or the potential blackmail
that could have been tied to any of her "missing" emails that the Russians and others
Russia [aka Soviet Union] was simply a "red herring" (pun intended) during the Cold
War days when the Left always blamed American first. Now post-Soviet autocratic Russia is
a lethal menace behind every GOP trash can. The irony is so rich.
I am old enough to have a conscious memory of the end days of the McCarthy smears.
This seems a lot like that. Wild charges, no evidence. Senator McCarthy always "had" a
list of 57, 95, or 212 active communists in the State Department, he just never got
around to disclosing names. Evidence? The Democrats don't seem to need it. Just
investigate, investigate, investigate. Anything to distract from the true reasons for
Clinton's loss. The party of FDR wrote off the white working class. They thought they'd
have enough minority and female voters to win. They didn't.
Oh, oh. Mike Rogers, Obama's head of the NSA is testifying that the NSA did NOT have
high confidence that the wusskies interfered to help Trump win. I wonder if Boris
Badanoff and Natasha threatened him and his family?
Look, Democrats just cannot bring themselves to accept the blame for their loss, no
surprise, they truly believe they are on the right side of history, Cuba, North Korea,
and venezuela not withstanding. But the aging cold warriors, like McNasty, pine for the
days when people used to seek their opinion on the USSR.
And the best part in this fishing expedition of democRATS and politicized government
agencies is that they have found NOTHING, only the daily, weekly and monthly fabrications
cooked backstage by MSM and accomplices agents leaning or part of Obanus regime..
Really good piece. So why does DC go bonkers over Russia but not deeper and more
problematic connections of politicians and public figures such as with Turkey, China, or
Israel? It's all about the emails and Hillary's lame excuses.
I find it ironic because during the Cold War, it was generally Republicans who opposed
the Soviet Union and its foreign policy the most strongly, with both language and action,
while Democrats favored conciliation with American rivals. Nowadays, however,
conservatives seem more pro-Russia while liberals seem much more hostile.
Buhaha You assume that I am a russian/live in Russia because I dare (oh, by the Gods
what a sacrilege!) to support russian foreign policy..
This alone is a good example of the delusional and zealot-like nature of russophobes such
Learn my uneducated "friend" that I live in an EU country, born and raised here-and
judging by the median US salary there is a great chance I make more $$ than you..But then
again only a cretin would judge a country based solely on these metrics..(Well, a cretin
and a russophobe in your case..)
Americans don't see it, but this anti-russian craze is creating serious pressures in
Europe, where voters more and more consider EU governments' blind following of U.S.
foreign policy as dangerous to their interests. Contrary to U.S. establishment, we
Europeans are not supremacists who believe that only their opinions and ways are the
right ones and the whole world needs to bow down to them. Remember what is the basis of
democracy? It's pluralism of opinions and civilised discussion. If Washington continues
this ideological war for longer time, it may cause serious problems for NATO.
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also
include prejudice ,
discrimination , or
antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity , or the belief that
members of different races or ethnicities should be treated differently.  Modern
variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between
peoples. These views can take the form of social actions , practices or beliefs, or
in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on
presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. 
"... Given the Democratic Party's reliance on the Russia narrative, these types of comments are likely to continue and worsen as the highly polarized investigations continue ..."
During an interview with NBC's
Chuck Todd on May 28, Clapper said, "If you put that in context with everything else we
knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election," he said. "And just the historical
practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate,
gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So, we were concerned."
It's unclear what Clapper meant or what evidence he has to suggest that Russians are "almost
genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor." His comments are xenophobic towards an
entire ethnicity and are far beyond criticism of Putin and the Russian government.
His comments go far into neo-McCarthyist territory, which many critics and skeptics have
warned the Democratic Party and intelligence community against. Clapper jumped from explaining
the investigation into Russia's role in the election to propagating an unhealthy and unfounded
definition of the Russian people. These comments are the type of sentiments that provoke such
policies as deporting all Russians from the United States, severing all ties with Russians,
banning all multi-national corporations from engaging in business with Russians, dispelling the
Russian Embassy, and setting off a chain of events that exponentially increase the likelihood
of military conflict between two nuclear superpowers.
In the United States alone, nearly three million people claim
direct Russian ancestry and almost one million people speak Russian.
However, Russia's interference in the election and the current political climate have fostered
an environment in which Clapper could say this on national television without anyone batting an
eye. Chuck Todd ignored the comment and proceeded with the interview as though Clapper's
response was normal.
The mainstream media have contributed to this Russiophobic rhetoric by perpetuating,
elevating and sensationalizing the Russia narrative. Several hucksters and conspiracy theorists
have gained massive followings from crying Russia at every opportunity, such as British
Conservative Louise Mensch and
former Bill Clinton volunteer director Claude Taylo r, who continue duping followers into
believing they have exclusive sources or insight into the "smoking gun" on Trump's ties with
Russia. By interviewing them, the mainstream media have irresponsibly elevated these people as
reliable sources on the subject. The New York Times even published an op-ed by Mensch,
who has furthered baseless claims that Russia
was behind Anthony Weiner's sexting crimes and has called
Bernie Sanders a "Russian agent."
Given the Democratic Party's reliance on the Russia narrative, these types of comments
are likely to continue and worsen as the highly polarized investigations continue .
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
"The Campaign Press: Members of the 10 Percent, Reporting for the One Percent" [Matt
Rolling Stone ]. "Anyone who's worked in the business (or read Manufacturing Consent)
knows nobody calls editors to red-pencil text.
The pressure comes at the point of hire. If you're the type who thinks Jeff Bezos should
be thrown out of an airplane, or that it's a bad look for a DC newspaper to be owned by a
major intelligence contractor, you won't rise.
Meanwhile, the Post has become terrific at promoting Jennifer Rubins and Max Boots.
Reporters watch as good investigative journalism about serious structural problems dies on
the vine, while mountains of column space are devoted to trivialities like Trump tweets
and/or simplistic partisan storylines.
Nobody needs to pressure anyone. We all know what takes will and will not earn attaboys in
newsrooms. Trump may have accelerated distaste for the press, but he didn't create it. He
sniffed out existing frustrations and used them to rally anger toward 'elites' to his side.
The criticism works because national media are elites, ten-percenters working for
The longer people in the business try to deny it, the more it will be fodder
for politicians. Sanders wasn't the first, and won't be the last."
• Yep. I'm so glad
Rolling Stone has Matt Taibbi on-board. Until advertisers black-list "the One Percent," I
"... Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and discussions labeled "false and misleading" on major social media platforms . ..."
"... Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what has been claimed etc. ..."
"... "A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed." ..."
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. ..."
"... The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here. ..."
"... This co-ordinated and global media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason. ..."
"... The determination of international deepstate to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty. ..."
"... The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they are . ..."
"... Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. ..."
"... The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the vast majority of humanity ..."
"... I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time: "Just the ones that are true" ..."
"... A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. ..."
"... One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy, by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense. ..."
"... For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down). ..."
"... 'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner. ..."
Chomsky has pointed out , the more educated we are, the more we are a target for state-corporate propaganda. Even journalists
outside the mainstream may internalize establishment values and prejudices. Which brings us to Parramore's embrace of the term "conspiracy
theory." Once a neutral and little-used phrase, "conspiracy theory" was infamously weaponized in
1967 by a memo from the CIA to its station chiefs worldwide.
Troubled by growing mass disbelief in the "lone nut" theory of President Kennedy's assassination, and concerned that "[c]onspiracy
theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization," the agency directed its officers to "discuss the publicity problem
with friendly and elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the
attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."
In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' appeared in the Washington Post and New
York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or
about once per week."
While it turns out that Parramore knows something about this hugely successful propaganda drive, she chose in her NBC piece to deploy
the phrase as the government has come to define it, i.e., as "something that requires no consideration because it is obviously not
true." This embeds a fallacy in her argument which only spreads as she goes on. Likewise, the authors of the studies she cites, who
attempt to connect belief in "conspiracy theories" to "narcissistic personality traits," are not immune to efforts to manipulate
the wider culture. Studies are only as good as the assumptions from which they proceed; in this case, the assumption was provided
by an interested Federal agency. And what of their suggested diagnosis?
On the contrary, most of the people I know who hold these varied (and not always shared) views are deeply empathic, courageously
humble, and resigned to a life on the margins of official discourse, even as they doggedly seek to publicize what they have learned.
A number of them have arrived at their views through painful, direct experience, like the
loss of a friend or the illness of a child, but far from having a "negative view of humanity," as Parramore writes, most hold
a deep and abiding faith in the power of regular people to see injustice and peacefully oppose it. In that regard, they share a great
deal in common with writers like Parramore: ultimately, we all want what's best for our children, and none of us want a world ruled
by unaccountable political-economic interests. If we want to achieve that world, then we should work together to promote speech that
is free from personal attacks on all sides. Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and
discussions labeled "false and misleading"
on major social media platforms.
Who will decide what is false and what is true? ... ... ...
President Kennedy said:
a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Perhaps we should take a closer look at ideas that so frighten the powers-that-be. Far from inviting our ridicule, the people who
insist that we look in these forbidden places may one day deserve our thanks.
John Kirby is a documentary filmmaker. His latest project, Four Died Trying, examines what John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King and Robert Kennedy were doing in the last years of their lives which may have led to their deaths.
I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place.
"The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here."
Wrong: secrets can be uncovered even if both of them are dead.
"The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked."
Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what
has been claimed etc.
"A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved
too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed."
Always a bad sign when you start to repeat "would have". Lots of presumption here.
"No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long dead, taking the reasons to their graves .."
New facts can emerge all the time even regarding the most ancient of events.
" .or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported."
So you now have godlike omniscience?
"A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy "
There's no point in going much further here. You now devolve into psychobabble which, as always, is based on the dogmatic assertion
that you are right. (cf. the formerly mentioned godlike omniscience)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." These words are attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
-So, George, it would hardly make a difference whether the State is Marxist or Capitalist. It's either power or
truth. They are inherently different and can not be reconciled. Ultimately, there is no bridge possible.
However, so-called "common" goals are of a lower order and cooperation here is possible, temporarily. These relationships are
unstable and prone to breaking up precisely because they're ultimately not common at all. The principle are different and the
personalities too. Ships Passing In The Night, like. -See?
We all have common goals. Basically the goals of life and health. And these are hardly goals "of a lower order". If that was true
then we must be living in a state of "postmodernist relativity" where anyone can decide arbitrarily what matters. And that would
certainly lead to your ships-passing-in-the-night scenario i.e. the ultimate divide-and-rule vision.
As for power, the late Marxist writer Ellen Meiksins Wood noted that, in modern times, we have an unprecedented degree of political
freedom. But the reason for that is that power no longer lies in politics. It lies in economics. What is the point of having formal
rights when your livelihood is gone?
The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here.
The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked. A two decade old CT, like 9/11,
or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people – someone would
have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed. No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long
dead, taking the reasons to their graves, or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported.
A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy. Such people are unable
to deal with the complexities of the world as it is, and therefore seek to make it a world of black and white, good and evil,
heroes and villains. The internet, with its blurring of fantasy and fact enables them. This is why discussions like this get so
1. 9/11 and JFK are false because WILLIAM HBonney has declared it so.
Boom, thanks for watching kids.
2. In other news, some Conspiracy Theorists Imagined 747-E4Bs above Washington at the time of 9/11 and 25+second delay introduced
into the Air Traffic Control System but the Official Conspiracy Account of 9/11 didn't discuss it because there was nothing to
6. But it's ok kidz, because HWB wack jobs, like first responders, police, fire personnel architects, physicists, former military
personnel, pilots, Nobel Peace Prixe winners, medical experts, etc etc all collectively asertained that the Official Conspiracy
Theory of 9/11 is about as usefull as the Warren Commission Report.
7. HOWEVER, HWB THINKS YOU'RE A WACK JOB.
unless & until someone goes to jail -- there are no conspiracies & as silence is -- like any commodity -- only as good as the
price paid to maintain it -- those who know have a real vested interest in not talking (it's not a secret if you tell someone)
Ms Parramore is doing nothing more than her profession and tenure demands. Witting or un-witting. This co-ordinated and global
media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason.
It is the 'Great Wurlitzer' at full throat
coinciding with extraordinary reductions in internet freedoms of information flow. The determination of international deepstate
to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump
supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway
globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty.
A read of the Cass Sunstein/Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule Paper describing 'Conspiracy theory' as a 'crippled Epistemology'
and determining 'COINTELPRO' type strategies to counter the danger of their truth becoming certainty, will enlighten those in
the dark of IIO methodology and expose Ms Parramore as a true MOCKINGBIRD.
The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And
CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they
"Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. Even the most
outlandish "conspiracy theory" in existence -- that people like George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth are shape-shifting, extra-dimensional
reptilians -- is closer to the truth than what liberals believe.
The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the
vast majority of humanity "
I've often felt there is a lot of (metaphorical!) truth in David Icke's ravings, although the reptile image is unfortunate
in that actual reptiles are amongst the most sedate and peaceful creatures.
Eichmann and today's useful idiots; Hannah Arendt
(start Arendt quote)
Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a "monster," but it was difficult indeed
not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather
hard to sustain, in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused so many millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly
noticed. What could you do with a man who first declared, with great emphasis, that the one thing he had learned in an ill-spent
life was that one should never take an oath ("Today no man, no judge could ever persuade me to make a sworn statement. I refuse
it; I refuse it for moral reasons. Since my experience tells me that if one is loyal to his oath, one day he has to take the consequences,
I have made up my mind once and for all that no judge in the world or other authority will ever be capable of making me swear
an oath, to give sworn testimony.
I won't do it voluntarily and no one will be able to force me"), and then, after being told
explicitly that if he wished to testify in his own defense he might "do so under oath or without an oath," declared without further
ado that he would prefer to testify under oath? Or who, repeatedly and with a great show of feeling, assured the court, as he
had assured the police examiner, that the worst thing he could do would be to try to escape his true responsibilities, to fight
for his neck, to plead for mercy -- and then, upon instruction of his counsel, submitted a handwritten document that contained
a plea for mercy?
As far as Eichmann was concerned, these were questions of changing moods, not of inconsistencies, and as long
as he was capable of finding, either in his memory or on the spur of the moment, an elating stock phrase to go with them, he was
quite content. (end quote)
I appreciate the article, but the sentence below is offered with no logical or rational support – it is simply an evidence free
("But Parramore and many journalists like her are neither assets of an intelligence service nor unthinking tools of big media;
) – really?
It is quite clear that if someone "is" (an asset of an intelligence service) that they will certainly not be broadcasting this
fact to the world or to friends and family. And for someone to assert that "conspiracies" don't exist in the real world requires
a level of credulity that most intelligent and rational people the least bit familiar with the historical record would find rather
difficult to muster up. I dare say it would be much easier in fact to prove the assertion that our Western history is simply the
"history of conspiracies" given the oligarchic control of Western populations for millennia. This is hardly "rocket science" as
they say. We do have a rather well documented historical record to fall back on to show the endless scheming of Western oligarchy
behind the backs of Western populations.
I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time:
"Just the ones that are true"
A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. Often people offer as fact conspiracies
that only as yet exist as theories,with greater or lesser amounts of evidence to support.I have no doubt that interested parties
who are the accused in these theories, will mount efforts to discredit any theory mounted against them or those they represent.
One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily
available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along
with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy,
by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense.
Isn't it high time we had a term to describe those who always accept the official version of events after controversial political
incidents no matter how implausible this account might be?
For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down).
'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that
might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling
fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner.
Anyway, here's a clip of Henry – the believers in everything the government say would never have considered the objections
raised in the film – such questions are tantamount to mental illness according to these 'progressives'.
Need to investigate the role , if any , of Dr. Michael Baden in the Epstein and JFK autopsy
According to Dr.Crenshaw who treated JFK at the Parkland Hospital Kennedy was shot once or
twice from the front and , therefore, Oswald could not possibly have been the killer. See "
Trauma Room One , the JFK Medical Coverup Exposed . " By Dr. Michael Crenshaw .
"... Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name. ..."
"... In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets, also funded by the FO. ..."
"... "The Guardian is struggling for money" Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets. ..."
OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article
Hypocrisy Taints UK's
Media Freedom Conference , was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in
the writing, I started to see more than that. This event is actually creepy. Let's just look back at one of the four "main themes"
of this conference:
Building trust in media and countering disinformation
"Countering disinformation"? Well, that's just another word for censorship. This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT
accreditation. They claim RT "spreads disinformation" and they "countered" that by barring them from attending. "Building trust"?
In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, "building trust" is just another way of saying "making people believe us" (the word usage
is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust). The whole conference is shot through with this language
that just feels off. Here is CNN's
Christiane Amanpour :
Our job is to be truthful, not neutral we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence."
Being "truthful not neutral" is one of Amanpour's
, she obviously thinks it's clever. Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for "bias". Refusing to cover evidence of The White
Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally
claim to only publish "the truth", to get around impartiality and then set about making up whatever "truth" is convenient. Oh, and
if you don't know what "creating a false moral quivalence is", here I'll demonstrate: MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical
media. OffG: But you're supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down. BBC: No. That's not the same. OffG: It seems the
same. BBC: It's not. You're creating a false moral equivalence . Understand now? You "create a false moral equivalence" by
pointing out mainstream media's double standards. Other ways you could mistakenly create a "false moral equivalence": Bringing up
Gaza when the media talk about racism. Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights. Referencing the US coup in
Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia's "interference in our democracy" Talking about the invasion of
Iraq. Ever. OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT. These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media's
double standards, and if you say they are , you're "creating a false moral equivalence" and the media won't have to allow
you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. Because they don't have a duty to be neutral or show both
sides, they only have a duty to tell "the truth" as soon as the government has told them what that is. Prepare to see both those
phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along
with people bemoaning how "fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality" by "being even handed between liars the truth tellers".
(I've been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).
Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. "Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support
system for journalists facing hostile environments" , this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our
"enemies" in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course),
Russia. That is ALL it means. I said in my earlier article I don't know what "media sustainability" even means, but I feel I can
take a guess. It means "save the government mouthpieces". The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news
is getting lower viewing figures all the time. "Building media sustainability" is code for "pumping public money into traditional
media that props up the government" or maybe "getting people to like our propaganda". But the worst offender on the list is, without
a doubt "Navigating Disinformation"
"Navigating Disinformation" was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really
feel the need. I already did, so you don't have to. The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The
members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian
Deputy Minister of Information
Have you guessed what "disinformation" they're going to be talking about? I'll give you a clue: It begins with R. Freeland, chairing
the panel, kicks it off by claiming that "disinformation isn't for any particular aim" . This is a very common thing for establishment
voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought. The reason
they have to claim that "disinformation" doesn't have a "specific aim" is very simple: They don't know what they're going to call
"disinformation" yet. They can't afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves
the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as "disinformation." Left or right. Foreign or domestic.
"Disinformation" is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague. So, we're one minute in, and all "navigating disinformation"
has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start. Interestingly,
no one has actually said the word "Russia" at this point. They have talked about "malign actors" and "threats to democracy", but
not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that "propaganda"= " Russian propaganda" that they don't need
to say it.
The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use "disinformation" has not just been dismissed
it was literally never even contemplated. Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always
meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know "more than most" about disinformation, she says. Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing
new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing then immediately calls for regulation of social media. Nobody disagrees. Then
he talks about the "illegal annexation of Crimea", and claims the West should outlaw "paid propaganda" like RT and Sputnik. Nobody
disagrees. Then he says that Latvia "protected" their elections from "interference" by "close cooperation between government agencies
and social media companies". Everyone nods along. If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention. They don't say
it, they probably don't even realise they mean it, but when they talk about "close cooperation with social media networks", they
mean government censorship of social media. When they say "protecting" their elections they're talking about rigging them. It only
gets worse. The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster "traditional media".
The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren't paid enough, and don't keep up to date with all the
"new tricks". His solution is to "promote financing" for traditional media, and to open more schools like the "Baltic Centre of Media
Excellence", which is apparently a totally real thing .
It's a training centre which teaches young journalists about "media literacy" and "critical thinking". You can read their depressingly
predictable list of "donors" here . I truly wish I was joking. Next
up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally "protect journalists", but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda.
(Their token effort to "defend"
RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible).
She talks for a long time without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone
told the truth. Inspiring. Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting
politicians should not endorse "propaganda" platforms. She shares an anecdote about "a prominent Slovakian politician" who gave exclusive
interviews to a site that is "dubiously financed, we assume from Russia". They assume from Russia. Everyone nods.
It's like they don't even hear themselves.
Then she moves on to Hungary. Apparently, Orban has "created a propaganda machine" and produced "antisemitic George Soros posters".
No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to "fake
news sites". She calls for "international pressure", but never explains exactly what that means. The stand-out maniac on this panel
is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed
the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to "counter lies about Ukraine". Even
The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)
She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through "disinformation" and becomes
"incoherent rambling". She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you'll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian
"cognitive influence" is "toxic like radiation." Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists
nod and chuckle. On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again. She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars
"just for being muslims", nobody questions her. She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn't mention that her
side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.
She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were "forced". A fact not supported by
any polls done by either side in the last
four years, and any referenda held
on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It's simply a lie. Nobody asks her about the journalists
killed in Ukraine since their
glorious Maidan Revolution . Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the "Ministry of Information". Nobody
does anything but nod and smile as the "countering disinformation" panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.
When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this "threat"
– here's the list:
Work to distinguish "free speech" from "propaganda", when you find propaganda there must be a "strong reaction".
Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
Regulate social media.
Educate journalists at special schools.
Start up a "Ministry of Information" and have state run media that isn't controlled, like in Ukraine.
This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said,
and who can say it. They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia .and Russia takes
up easily 90% of that. They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik. This wasn't a panel on disinformation, it was
a public attack forum – a month's worth of 2 minutes of hate. These aren't just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots,
brainwashed to the point of total delusion.
They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it
wants, to anyone it wants whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality. They don't know, they don't care.
They're true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says
"Freedom". And that's just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of
authority. Truly, perfectly Orwellian.
Amanpour was forced to laugh uncontrollably, when confronted with Lavrov's humorous interpretations of various legal aspects
of decency & his Judgement of others' politicians and 'Pussy Riots' >>> if you haven't seen it, it is to be recommended, the whole
interview, if nothing else but to study the body language and micro-facial expressions, coz' a belly up laugh is not something
anybody can easily control or even feign that first spark of cognition in her mind, as she digests Lavrov's response :- hilarious
A GE won't solve matters since we have a Government of Occupation behind a parliament of puppets.
Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which
is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name.
In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business
of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign
countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets,
also funded by the FO.
Pryce's ventriloquist's dummy in parliament, the pompous Alan Duncan, announced another £10 million of public money for this
odious brainwashing programme.
That panel should be nailed & plastered over, permanently:-
and as wall paper, 'Abstracts of New Law' should be pasted onto a collage of historic extracts from the Guardian, in
offices that issue journalistic licenses, comprised of 'Untouchables' :-
A professional habitat, to damp any further 'Freeland' amplification & resonance,
of negative energy from professional incompetence.
Apropos of the redoubtable Ms Freeland, Canada's Foreign Secretary.
The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland's maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)
Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by
the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor
in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper
publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army's winning phase of the war, Chomiak
celebrated in print the Wehrmacht's "success" at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat
by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda,
at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against
Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.
Those Ukrainian 'Refugees' admitted to Canada in 1945 were almost certainly members of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizia 1.
These Ukie collaboraters – not to be confused with the other Ukie Nazi outfit – Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army -were
held responsible for the massacre of many Poles in the Lviv area the most infamous being carried out in the Polish village of
Huta Pienacka. In the massacre, the village was destroyed and between 500] and 1,000 of the inhabitants were killed. According
to Polish accounts, civilians were locked in barns that were set on fire while those attempting to flee were killed. That's about
par for the course.
Canada's response was as follows:
The Canadian Deschênes Commission was set up to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the collaborators
Memorial to SS-Galizien division in Chervone, Lviv Oblast, western Ukraine
The Canadian "Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes" of October 1986, by the Honourable Justice Jules Deschênesconcluded that in
relation to membership in the Galicia Division:
''The Galicia Division (14. Waffen grenadier division der SS [gal.1]) should not be indicted as a group. The members of Galicia
Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division
have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this
Commission. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia
Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.''
However, the Commission's conclusion failed to acknowledge or heed the International Military Tribunal's verdict at the Nuremberg
Trials, in which the entire Waffen-SSorganisation was declared a "criminal organization" guilty of war crimes. Also, the Deschênes
Commission in its conclusion only referenced the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), thus in legal
terms, only acknowledging the formation's activity after its name change in August 1944, while the massacre of Poles in Huta Pieniacka,
Pidkamin and Palikrowy occurred when the division was called SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien". Nevertheless, a subsequent review
by Canada's Minister of Justice again confirmed that members of the Division were not implicated in war crimes.
Yes, the west looks after its Nazis and even makes them and their descendants political figureheads.
Most of these people are so smugly and complacently convinced of their own moral superiority that they just can't see the hypocrisy
and doublethink involved in the event.
Meanwhile Owen Jones has taken to Twitter to rubbish allegations that a reign of terror exists at Guardian Towers – the socialist
firebrand is quoted as saying 'journalists are free to say whatever they like, so long as it doesn't stray too far from Guardian-groupthink'.
Good analysis Kit, of the cognitive dissonant ping pong being played out by Nazi sympathisers such as Hunt and Freeland.
The echo chamber of deceit is amplified again by the selective use of information and the ignoring of relevant facts, such
as the miss reporting yesterday by Reuters of the Italian Neo-Nazi haul of weapons by the police, having not Russian but Ukrainian
Not a word in the WMSM about this devious miss-reporting as the creation of fake news in action. But what would you expect?
Living as I do in Russia I can assure anyone reading this that the media freedom here is on a par with the West and somewhat
better as there is no paranoia about a fictitious enemy – Russians understand that the West is going through an existential crisis
(Brexit in the UK, Trump and the Clinton war of sameness in the US and Macron and Merkel in the EU). A crisis of Liberalism as
the failed life-support of capitalism. But hey, why worry about the politics when there is bigger fish to fry. Such as who will
pay me to dance?
The answer is clear from what Kit has writ. The government will pay the piper. How sweet.
I'd like to thank Kit for sitting through such a turgid masquerade and as I'm rather long in the tooth I do remember the old
BBC schools of journalism in Yelsin's Russia. What I remember is that old devious Auntie Beeb was busy training would be hopefuls
in the art of discretion regarding how the news is formed, or formulated.
In other words your audience. And it ain't the public
The British government's "Online Harms" White Paper has a whole section devoted to "disinformation" (ie, any facts, opinions,
analyses, evaluations, critiques that are critical of the elite's actual disinformation). If these proposals become law, the government
will have effective control over the Internet and we will be allowed access to their disinformation, shop and watch cute cat videos.
The liberal news media & hypocrisy, who would have ever thought you'd see those words in the same sentence.
But what do you expect from professional liars, politicians & 'their' free press?
Can this shit show get any worse? Yes, The other day I wrote to my MP regards the SNP legislating against the truth, effectively
making it compulsory to lie! Mr Blackford as much as called me a transphobic & seemed to go to great length publishing his neo-liberal
ideological views in some scottish rag, on how right is wrong & fact is turned into fiction & asked only those that agreed with
him contact him.
"The science or logical consistency of true premise, cannot take place or bear fruit, when all communication and information is
'marketised and weaponised' to a mindset of possession and control."
I saw, somewhere (but can't find it now) a law or a prospective law which goes under the guise of harassment of MPs to include
action against constituents who 'pester' them.
I only emailed him once! That's hardly harassment. Anyway I sent it with proton-mail via vpn & used a false postcode using only
my first name so unlikely my civil & sincere correspondence will see me locked up for insisting my inalienable rights of freedom
of speech & beliefs are protected. But there again the state we live in, i may well be incarcerated for life, for such an outrageous
"The Guardian is struggling for money"
Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets.
Its the brazen nature of the conference that is especially galling, but what do you expect when crooks and liars no longer feel
they even have to pretend?
Nothing will change so long as politicians (or their shady backers) are never held to account for public assets diverted toward
a rapacious off-shore economic system, or the fact millions of lives have been shattered by the 'war on terror' and its evil twin,
'humanatarian regime change' (while disingenuous Labour MPs wail about the 'horrors' of antisemitism rather than the fact their
former leader is a key architect of the killings).
Kit remains a go-to voice when deconstructing claims made by political figures who clearly regard the MSM as a propaganda vehicle
for promoting western imperialism – the self-satisfied smugness of cunts like Jeremy Cunt stand in stark contrast to a real journalist
being tortured by the British authorities just a few short miles away.
It's a sligtly depressing thought but somebody has the unenviable task of monitoring just how far our politicians have drifted
from the everyday concerns of the 'just about managing' and as I say Mr Knightly does a fine job in informing readers what the
real of agenda of these media love-ins are actually about – it goes without saying a very lengthy barge pole is required when
the Saudis are invited but not Russia.
This Media Freedom Conference is surely a creepy theatre of the absurd.
It is a test of what they can get away with.
Yep. Any soviet TV watcher would recognise this immediately. Message? THIS is the reality – and you are powerless.
When are they going to give us the Ministry of Truth we so desperately need?
"... We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.' ..."
"... Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of the public. ..."
"... All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria, blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included bankers, financiers, industrialists, and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the ill-fated beer-hall putsch. (See here , and here .) ..."
"... The purpose of this propaganda barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering business interests.' ..."
Here was, of course, another surreal spectacle, this time courtesy of one of the Deep State's most dangerous, reviled, and divisive
figures, a notable protagonist in the Russia-Gate conspiracy, and America's most senior diplomat no less.
Not only is it difficult to accept that the former CIA Director actually believes what he is saying, well might we ask, "Who can
believe Mike Pompeo?"
And here's also someone whose manifest cynicism, hypocrisy, and chutzpah would embarrass the much-derided
scribes and Pharisees of Biblical days.
We have Pompeo on record recently in a rare moment of
honesty admitting – whilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a
bunch of his mates down at the local pub – that under his watch as CIA Director:
We lied, cheated, we stole we had entire training courses.'
It may have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that Pompeo didn't speak with a forked tongue.
At all events, his candour aside, we can assume safely that this reactionary, monomaniacal, Christian Zionist 'end-timer' passed
all the Company's "training courses" with flying colours.
According to Matthew Rosenberg
of the New York Times, all this did not stop Pompeo however from name-checking Wikileaks when it served his own interests. Back
in 2016 at the height of the election campaign, he had ' no compunction about pointing people toward emails stolen* by Russian hackers
from the Democratic National Committee and then posted by WikiLeaks."
[NOTE: Rosenberg's omission of the word "allegedly" -- as in "emails allegedly stolen" -- is a dead giveaway of bias on his part
(a journalistic Freudian slip perhaps?), with his employer
being one of those MSM marques leading the charge with the "Russian Collusion" 'story'. For a more insightful view of the source
of these emails and the skullduggery and thuggery that attended Russia-Gate, readers are encouraged to
check this out.]
And this is of course The Company we're talking about, whose past and present relationship with the media might be summed up in
Operation Mockingbird (OpMock). Anyone vaguely familiar with the well-documented Grand Deception that was OpMock, arguably the
CIA's most enduring, insidious, and successful
psy-ops gambit, will know what
we're talking about. (See
here , and
here .) At its most basic, this operation was all about propaganda and censorship, usually operating in tandem to ensure all
the bases are covered.
After opining that the MSM is 'totally infiltrated' by the CIA and various other agencies, for his part former NSA whistleblower
William Binney recently added , ' When it
comes to national security, the media only talk about what the administration wants you to hear, and basically suppress any other
statements about what's going on that the administration does not want get public. The media is basically the lapdogs for the government.'
We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.'
In order to provide a broader and deeper perspective, we should now consider the views of a few others on the subjects at hand,
along with some history. In a 2013 piece musing on the modern significance of the practice, my compatriot John Pilger
ecalled a time when he met
back in 70s and asked her about her films that 'glorified the Nazis'.
Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger
noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's
spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the
"submissive void" of the public.
All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria,
blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also
impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included
bankers, financiers, industrialists,
and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the
here , and here .)
" Triumph " apparently still resonates today. To the surprise of few one imagines, such was the impact of the film -- as casually
revealed in the excellent 2018 Alexis Bloom documentary Divide and
Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes -- it elicited no small amount of admiration from arguably the single most influential propagandist
of recent times.
[Readers might wish to check out Russell Crowe's recent portrayal of Ailes in Stan's mini-series
The Loudest Voice , in my view one the best performances of the man's career.]
In a recent piece unambiguously titled "Propaganda Is The Root Of All Our Problems", my other compatriot Caitlin Johnstone also
had a few things to
say about the subject, echoing Orwell when she observed it was all about "controlling the narrative".
Though I'd suggest the greater "root" problem is our easy propensity to ignore this reality, pretend it doesn't or won't affect
us, or reject it as conspiratorial nonsense, in this, of course, she's correct. As she cogently observes,
I write about this stuff for a living, and even I don't have the time or energy to write about every single narrative control
tool that the US-centralised empire has been implementing into its arsenal. There are too damn many of them emerging too damn
fast, because they're just that damn crucial for maintaining existing power structures.'